The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-09-22
CAN SUE UNIONS
 FOR STRIKE DAMAGE.
Decision of. the House of Lords Rem s.s.t sders the Strikers Liable to [, ! r,i-, !, .. Civil Action. s- s-tz-

frsi7, fs3 Civil Action. s,i -t ' Threats in the united States on the part of capital to bring damake fsutfs Agai9st labor unions, as have been made sposspsie in Great Britain by decision Of the House of Lords. have awakensd q good deal of interest in the United States ts to just what the House of Lords decision
 was The point or wnerner rn sssect 9 hGs to sne ecution under damage hndlngS has been made quite clear in the BritiSh 1sle sinsn- I
 v The Bsiti,s m T,. case sm.1 es 1ss ssS W sa hallway Servants, a irsds 9m, af
 tered under the trade union ASfs pf dfeat
 Britain. had ordered a strike against the
 eonSse as yaie of the strlas the eompany applied
 to the. courts for an injunction to pre-
 vent the secretaries of the society from
 ordering the picketing of the railway sta
 ages resulting to It's property from the
 actions of the trades unionists.
 Justice Farwell. in the chancery division
 Uf the High s cou RssseG xapaassd Ipsn sss % so
 ciety took the grounds that as 1t was
 neither Q person nor an incorporated poay
 1t could not be a party 10 the action.
 and granted the injunction forbidding picketing of the railway premises and Interference of all kinds with such per-
 sons as remained in the employ of the
 The AmaIsamated Society took an ap- peal from the decision, which was fpl-
 lowed by the Court of Appeals. This acts made a trade union liable to be sued | in its feRisterea name, to the end that It's funds might be taken In execution. Ac- cordngly the court dissolved the inJunc-
 ton which had been granted by Justice | Farwell From this the Tan Vale Rail-
 House a of Lords. Recently that body of fv@-l AtN Ata&f
 ths a.ef soup it hea in n bref | That a trade union registered under l the trades union acts can be sued in its | registered name. And also that trade business, may be made liable for. dam | ages just as any other Incorporated body | might be. Justice Farwells position was
 restored. and the costs ,a oi 1ss wnois n I- prGI- At the time of this first decision In
 September. 1900. the Trades Union Con.
 a sensation was sprung in that body. It | was questioned where would the rights l of labor be guaranteed if such a decision
 were allowed ,h to don n9.a ana 2, m
 down SoS' by sse, GOO to s4s.o0c votes.
 London labor journal. commenting says that 1t has overturned the proceed | ure of twenty-five years. But 1t adds, with a considerable degre Of compiaas- ance:-
 rage after this dislocating Judgment the | trade union leaders will do well to avoid | panic They must be prepared to race the | strong contention that it is only fair the I unions should be held responsible for the acts of their duly authorized cfiicials In l the same way as employers are heid TOT | their managers, foremen and even ordi- | nary workmen. Privileges must not pc | claimed for a class. Above all we must | not have any such talk as was tnduIge0 | in last year, when certain officials argued l aa though unions could not exist IT they | were not allowed some latitude for dis. | order and violence. If this were true.
 then the last word has been said ID their
 "s.rt'ii @it Should also be borne in. lalpa tha: | before a. society can be sued it's agent I must have been proved guilty Of g breach I of the law. So far as the House pf Lords | decision tends to put the mere hrebrano I at a discount, the unions will gain, for ne
 Is an fntoIerable nuisance, even when ne is not a positive, danger. But, neyerthe. | less, there Is much to be said Tor tnt l view-which in practice has had the force | of law--that trade union Is not. cor | poration. It is quite certain that but Tor | thts immunity from financial, liability for | acts of officials labor organization would | have never become an effective power, | and 1t is not clear that 1t can remain l such if it Is open to the sort of attacks l now made possible"