Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1901-07-31
THE PROGRESS OF iNIUNCTIONs

(From the Springfield Republican.)
The stoutest defenders of the njunc-
tion process as used against striking
workmen must admit that it Is being
rapidly pushed to extremes. From the
very nature Of the case this is a re-
suit to be expected. The power which
| the courts are using is very elastic
and not clearly defined. A review of
| the past so years would reveal the fact
that 1t has grown amazingly, not
through legislation by the people, but
through the reasoning and the decision
of the courts themselves. There are
hundreds Of judges in this country,
working under the codes of A different
states and the nation itself, and each
Of them may extend the injunction
process to suit themselves, subject
only to the restraining power of
higher court of appeal. AS labor con-
to make the injunctions more and more
sweeping has become very marked
in all parts Of the country. A little
extension of the theory Of judicial
contempt at ono time makes it easy to
effect another extension at later time,
so that things have reached serious
pass In this summer of 1901.
The judges have been mainly acting
to protect the rights Of employers to
conduct their business unmolested and
the rights of non-union workmen to
sell their labor where they please.
In this effort they have reached
point where they are clearly encroach-
ing upon the rights of the other side.
TO enjoin "A striker from talking with
Il non-union workman In order to in
duce him by peaceful argument to
join the forces of tho strikers, Is an
Invasion of the simplest rights of the
citizen. The recent injunctions against
"picketing" have travelled some way,
1t appears, beyond tho Boston patrol
case, which was decided In October,
1896, by the Massachusetts supreme
court. 1t VIII be recalled that the
striking employees of a firm doing
business on Hanover street in Boston
were entolned from maintaining II
patrol In front of the building
TO watch the persons who ell
tered to take their places ana
to persuade or frighten them TO
stay away. The injunction, be IT re-
membered, was against a patrol right
In front Of the firms place of bust.
ness The Massachusetts supreme
court sustained the injunction, but
Chiet Justice Field and Judge Holmes
dlssented, ON the ground that as no
case of actual intimidation or violence
had been made out against the strik-
ers patrol, the lawfuluess of approach
Ing the non-union men, and seeking
peaceably to persuade them by argu
ment TO keep away, must be conceded
Judge Holmes said
lr II be true that workingmen may
combine with a view, among other
things, to getting as much as they
can for their labor, just as capital
may combine with view to getting
the greatest possible return, It must
be trite that when combined they have
the same liberty that combined capi.
tai has, to support their interests by
argument, persuasion and the bestowal
or refusal of those advantages which
they otherwise lawfully control.
Today injunctions are issued in vari,
Gus states 10 prevent strikers from
, maintaining patrols or pickets any,
where, whether in front of their old
employers places of business or not
/ The Boston patrol case was concerned
) only with the maintenance of u regu
lar patrol in front of clothing firms
office, and it is conceivable that under
: such circumstances the patrol constl
! tuted an injury TO the company's bust
ness, which the courts were justified
: in enjoining, But are the courts justl
: fed in enJoining picketing anywhere
e and everywhere? Have not the strik
+ ers right to meet the non-union men