The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-16
Proceeding Against the Amn1gamated
WOOdworkers' Local Union I'm
Appellate Court.
CARLYLE QUOTED IN A BRIEF
APPELLANT SEVERE IN CRITICISM
OF LABOR UNIONS.
1t Is Said They Should BE Allowed
No More Privileges than Indi-
viduals EnjOy-The Argument.

the result of the Karges Furniture Com
pany suit, which recently came to the APP
pellate Court from Evansville. The suit
Is against the Amalgamated Wood
workers local union of Evansville. The
suit, with the brief of the appellant, was
filed several days ago, and on Saturday the
labor union filed a document denying that
there is any error in the record. The suit
comes to the higher court because the lower
court declined to grant a permanent in
junction against the woodworkers union
at the request Of the furniture company.
Some well-known legal counsel is engaged
in the case. George A. Cunningham, men,
Der of the Republican state committee from
the First district. is one Of the attorneys
for the appellant.
In the brief filed few days ago the at
torneys for the furniture company quote
one of Carlyle's declarations, which is
printed on the back OF the brief, as follows:
I'VE were wise indeed could we discern
truly the signs of our own time. and by
knowledge of its wants and advantages
wisely adjust our own position in it, Let
lis instead of gazing idly into the obscure
distance look calmly around us on the per-
picked scene where we stand. Perhaps, on
a more serious inspection, something of it's
perplexity will disappear, some of it's dis
tinctive characters and deeper tendencies
more clearly reveal themselves, whereby
our own relations to il, our own true aims
and endeavors in it, may also become
clearer"
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.
The furniture company had the wood
workers temporarily enjoined from boycott
ting it's business and interfering with its
riL no
fused to make the injunction permanent
M making its argument the appellant de-
clares that there is no reason why body
of men should be accorded privileges as
members of labor union which they would
| not otherwise be permitted to enjoy. 1t is
difficult to comprehend upon what legal
grounds the idea ever obtained that it
was lawful for members of labor union
to interfere with the rights of others, guar
anteed by the Constitution and the laws
of the land, which would subject others
| to the condemnation of the law. The lax
ideas which have crept into the public
mind on this subject, encouraged perhaps
by politicians. have caused much of the
unrest now SO grievously affecting socie-
ties, and producing vagueness or uncer-
| tainty as to what the lawy really is. 1t is
gratifying, however, to know that wherever
| of last resort, correct legal principles have
been announced and not a single case can
4
has ever held that the rights of the citi-
| zens are not to be protected equally from
interference by labor unions as from all
other sources. The law, therefore, which
| would be applicable TO a state OF facts,
| the result of the combination of one man
| or combination of men, would apply equally
to the same facts, and the same man or
| combination of men. If they were had or
| done by the members of a labor union or
| In pursuance of the orders Of the union
| acting in its organized capacity. Mem
II Herc r4fc D.,
| suance of the orders of union, can never
be justified If illegal, simply because of
their origin. We can have no privileged
| class in this country. There is power
| residing either In the Legislature or In the
| courts to create such a privileged class.
The very first declaration of our fore
| fathers In seeking to escape from the tyr
amy of the mother country was. All men
| are created equal The government itself
was formed to guarantee this equality OF
| right under law. Shall 1t now be said that
tect the individual citizen in the enjoyment
of life, liberty and the pursuit Of happi-
to the hearts of the people has become a
thing Of the past; and that a combination
| of men may be got together under any
name, who by brute force, moral persua-
| sion, intimidation, or any other means,
may terroriZe the community, may SO
| overcome the will of the citizens, as to
| substitute their orders and DEGREES, the
| vote of the majority, for the law OF the
| land?
| SHOULD WORK BOTH WAYS.
| eff it is unlawful for A to entice away
| the servant of B, why should it not be
| equally unlawful for any number of men
| to do the thing which A is denied the right
| to do? If il be unlawful for A to induce
| the breach of the contract between and
| c., why should it not be unlawful for A
and a combination got up by him to do that
| which A could not himself do? A breach
| of contract is necessarily involved in the
| wrongful termination of the relation OF
| master and servant. The correlative rights
| of the servant not to have his employment
| interfered with equally protected as
| for instance, in London VS.. Hall, supra,
Judgment was sustained by the servant
| for wrongfully pursuading and procuring
| the employer to discharge him. To the
same effect are all the cases where this
| subject has been UP for consideration. II
| perfectly accords with our sense of right
and wrong to hold any man liable to
servant for causing his discharge, and also
to the master for inducing the servant tC
quit his employ. The wrong and damag,
are just the same. without regard TO tn,
means employed to accomplish the result
Toward the close OF its exhaustive argu
ment the appellants brief says: What
ever may be said in favor of organized
labor, the fact remains that their mode.
of conducting strikes and interfering will
the invested capital OF the country, will
the right of each man to earn his Twins
and conduct his business according TO hi
own views, within legal limits have serve,
| to vindicate the wisdom of the common
| law show that all endeavors to substi
tute any expedient in its stead falls shor
of accomplishing any permanent good t,