The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-07-25

would sentence her heavily. The Hungarian
miners claiming they had not un-
derstood the injunction were released on
the promise not 10 violate it again. The
Austro- Hungarian consul at New York was
here to represent them. Including some
arrested later there We're twenty-four Hun
garians released in the same manner.
THE DECISION.
Judge Jackson. in his decision. said:
What is an Injunction? Is it the exercise
of an arbitrary power by the courts of the
country, is it a power that has been
recognized from a very early date as one
Of the branches OF administrative justice?
1 answer this question by affirming that
the ordinary use Of the writ of injunction
is TO prevent wrong and injuries TO per-
sons and their property or 10 reinstate the
rights of persons to their property when
they have been deprived of it. 1t is the
most efficient. il not the only remedy. to
stay irreparable injury and to punish those
who disobey the order of court granting
the writ. In the language of the text
writer's, il is prohibitory and restitutory.
"A similar writ TO this was in use in the
days Of the Roman empire and has always
been in use in England from the founda-
use in this country since the organization
of the government.
1T is a mistaken idea to suppose that
the courts of this country abuse this writ.
In my long experience on the bench, can
not recall a single occasion when any
court, either federal or state, ever abused
1T in what is known as strike cases. 1t is
true that our courts have been criticised
f,s~
the use of it and have denounced the
courts for governing by injunctions. But
this criticism is so obviously unjust to the
courts that IL is unnecessary TO enter into
any defense of them.
II do not question the right of the en-
ployes OF this company to quit work at any
time they desire 10 do so, unless there is
a contract relation between them and the
employer, which should control their right
to quit. At the same time do not recog-
nize the right OF an employer to coerce
the employees to continue their work when
they desire TO quit.
MAY COMBINE. NOT CONSPIRE.
while 1 recognize the right for all
laborers TO combine for the purpose of
protecting all their lawful rights, do not
recognize the right of laborers 10 conspire
together to compel employees. who are not
dissatisfied with their work in the mines,
TO lay down their picks and shovels and
TO quit their work without a just or pro-
per reason therefor, merely to crafty
professional set OF 'agitators, organizers
and walking delegates who roam all over
the country agents for some combina-
tion who are vampires that live and fat
ten upon the honest labor of the coal
miners of the country, and who are busy
bodies, creating dissatisfaction among a
class of people who are quiet, well-dis-
posed and who do not want to be disturbed
by the agitation of this class of people.
In the case we have under considera-
ton, these defendants are known as pro-
fessionaI agitators, organizers and walk
ing delegates They have nothing in com
mon with the people who are employed in
the mines OF the Clarksburg Fuel Com
pany.
THE strong arm of the court of equity is
invoked in this case not TO suppress the
right of free speech but TO restrain and in
hibit these defendants, whose only pur-
pose is TO bring about strikes by trying 10
coerce people who are not dissatisfied with
the terms OF their employment, which re-
suits in inflcting injury and damage TO
their employers as we'll as the employees.
1.-The right OF a citizen TO labor for wages
that he is satisfied with is a right protected
by law and is entitled to the same protec-
tion as free speech and should be better
CONTINUED ON PAGE 3. COL. A.