The bee., 1901-12-26


ais having similar interests may by
all peaceabie and argumentative
means persuade others to Join with
them in their efforts to do what they
fairly consider to be beneficial to
themselves as class, but the safety
and preservation of these great and
inestimable rights in free country
depends in no small degree upon
their recognition and upon their be-
ing respected by all persons alike.
They are rights which belong to all
in common and not to one class only.
The employer and the employe, in
whatever business they may be en-
gagged, either in plain merchandiz-
ing or farming or in conduct
Ing the most extensive manu-
featuring or other business, must
have rights which are equal, and
both sides must understand, must
respect and must act upon that prin-
ciple whenever it applies. When
either side to a contention over di-
verse interests of this character can,
by superior force or other means of
intimidation, compel the other side
to such controversy to yield to it's
demands. anarchy and oppression
have begun, and there is no assur-
ance that in the next encounter the
other side may not, be the victors,
and thus might and force and power
instead of just legal principles may
dictate the standard of right to
which all must. conform. The only
course that is safe for all, the few or
many, the weak or the powerful, is
vigorously to require that each party
to all such controversies shall recog-
nize the equal rights of all. 1t is the
duty of the courts, upon all proper
occasions, to see that this done, and
to apply these principles in all cases
that come before them. With this
rule as a guide there is no difficulty
in solving the problem presented by
the record in this case. The en-
ployer, and, in the main, the en-
ployes, in this instance were alike
content. They must be presumed
to have understood their own condi-
ton and needs and what was best
for themselves, and they were not
required to subordinate their inter-
ests or their wishes to those of MIN
ers in distant localities or States
where what might be entirely differ
ent conditions would make the In
dianapolis. scale of wages more
equitable and proper for those who
desired to adopt 1t. They had the
right to be left free to pursue their
own course about matters exclusive
ly of their own concern. The agree
ment between the laborer and the
employer was one which it was the
mutual right of both to make, and
one which constituted a. material,
and valuable interest i'm both, and
one IN which they had the right not
to be disturbed by persons who
clearly had no right to do so either
by force or by the appearance of
force, nor by any threats or other
forms of intimidation. This right
thus possessed was a valuable prop
erty right, valuable to the laborer,
but none the less so to the employer.
The intrusion of the defendants, so
long as mere peaceful argument and
persuasion were used, was IN no way
violative of the rights of the COM
plainant, but when that persuasion
took the form of the multltudinous
camp and the gun and the pistol and
the armed force itpassed the bounds
of legal right and entitled the COM
plainant to its lawful remedies
against it, quite as much, to say the
least, as the nuisance of "picketing."
If this court can not, in a case like
this, protect the rights of citizen
when assailed, as those of the COM
plainant have been in this instance,
there is decrepitude in judicial
power which would be mortifying to
every thoughtful man. 1t is con-
ceived that there is no such lmpot-
ency, and there should be no lack of
promptness in exercising, in the
premises, all the power the court
possesses. Quite true it may be that
the exertion of executive power
would be more desirable in cases
like this, but that abstract PROPOSE
tion in no wise exempts the court
from the duty of protecting the
rights of the 1itigant when a proper
case is presented.
It has not been deemed useful to
cite authorities in support of princi-
pies so well settled as those upon
which the court must proceed in
this case, but it may be we'll to mem
tiOn the case in re. Debs. 158 U. S.
564, as covering the whole ground.
AS already intimated, the court
HAS lOO ldilcu W LObiCc bilC CAJiClu
conflict in the testimony presented
by the respective sides, and an at
tempt to reconcile those conflicts
would obviously be unavailing. 1t
may not be inappropriate, however,
to say that the statement so posi-
lively made in the affidavit of one
of the chief officers of the local as
sociation of United Mine Workers
to the effect that Henry Taylor was
in cold blood is so palpa-
bly, refuted and shown to be so ut
terly false by the record and by the
Court of Appeals in its decision In
the proceedings which resulted from
that unfortunate event that dis
credit is thrown upon the equally
positive statements made in other
A careful consideration of the tes-
tlmony leaves the court in no doubt
that the averments of the bill are
substantially true, and this being
so, the motion for the Injunction
pendente lite will be sustained in
order to prevent great and probably
injury. The testimony
also leaves upon the mind of the
court, as before stated, the pleas
urable assurance that the tempo