The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-02

what the strikers properly may do, in furtheranee of their strike. but only with what our law forbade them to do. It for bids. without statute, precisely the same things this English act forbds and pun ishes criminally; and by the authority of the Debs case a court of equity will. in A proper case, restrain, by injunction, the doing of those things. These as quot ed bv Archbishop Ireland, and approved by him as expressing the moral and Christian, as well as the municipal law, are as follows: Every person who, with a view to compel any other person to ab- stain from doing or to do any act which such other person has a legal right to do or abstain from dong, wrongfully and without authority uses violence or in- timidates such other person, or his wife, or children, or injures property, or per- sistently follows such other person about from place to place, or hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by such other person. or deprives him of or flinders him in the use thereof; or watches or besets the house or other place where such other person resides or works or carries on business, or hap pens to be, or the approach to such house or place; or follows such person with two or more other persons in disorderly man. ner. through any street or road, shall on conviction be punished as provided "
 
 ; the law on the subject in England, and assuredly the acts denounced in the stat ute are unlawful in this state, and the other states of the Union. The respon- dents in this case are charged with com hitting many of the acts described in the English statute and for the pur- pose of this trial the charges are ad- mtted to be true. The court, further quot ing from Archbishop Ireland, says If bo catd hat n 9fr a sort of proprietary interest in his place, and that when another steps into 1t. he Is an unjust aggressor. who deserves to be summariy dealt with; that strikes must fail if employers are allowed to fill the places of strikers; and that compul- sion brought to bear on non-union men to prevent them from working. Is necessary as measure of war, and therefore justi- fable, the reply is that statements of this kind. however, are social sophistries, which, If put into practice, would speedi- ly undermine the structure of civil so- eiety. And if strikes necessarily require, as a condition of success the violation of personal liberty and the subversion of so- cial order, then strikes stand self-con- demned.' The same line of reasoning was used in the Massachusetts case of Sherry vs. Perkins 147 Mass. 2S2; 9 Am. St. Rep. 6S9. Banners were displayed in front of plaintiffs place of business with devices on them to deter persons from entering Into and continuing in his em- ployment. The court says: "The scheme, In pursuance of which the banners were displayed, and maintained, was to injure plaintiffs business, not by defamng it to the public. but by intimidating work men. so as to deter them from keeping or making engagements with the plain tiffs. The banner was a standing menace to all who were or wished to be in the employment of the plaintiff, to deter them from entering plaintiffs premises. Main taining 1t was a continuous unlawful act, injurious to the plaintiffs business and property, and was a nuisance, such as a court of equity will grant relief against" In State vs. Glidden. 55 Conn., 46; Am. St. Rep. 23, the court had up for consid- | eration a statute of the State of Con- necticut, which is in almost the same l language as the English statute before quoted. It was held that, Tt Is criminal 1 offense for two or more persons, cor ruptly or maliciously, to confederate and agree together to deprive another of his liberty or property And further held l that, Acts of persons in combnlng to- l gether to intimidate any employer and to compel him, against his will, to dis charge his workmen and employ such other persons the conspirators shall name, fall within the prohibition of the
 
 where the information further alleged that another purpose of the defendants was to injure and oppress certain work men of the publishing company a crime was charged under the statute
 See also Murdock vs. Walker, 34 Am. St. Rep. 67s; 25 At. Rep. 492 Otis Steel O. vs. Union, 1lO Fed. Rep. 69S Hamilton Brown Shoe Co., vs. Saxby (Mo), 32 s. w. 1106; 52 Am St. Rep 622
 in re Debs, 15s U. S. 564 affirming GA Fed. 724; So. Ky Co. vs. Union, Ill Fed
 Rep. 49; Sherry vs. Perkins CMass), Am. St. Rep. 6S9; Cole vs. Murphy (Pa) 39 Am. St. Rep. 6S6; Flaccus vs. Smith, | 54 L.. R. A. $40; Plant vs. Woods (Mass) | S5 Am. Rep. - 57 N. E. 1011; Casey vs
 Union. F l.. R. A. 193; Boutwell, vs. Marr. 1 43 L. R. A. 193; Lucke vs. Clothing Cut ters, 19 L. R. A. 40S; Peoples Gas Co.
 vs. Tynes, 31 Am. St. Rep. 4S3; Creighton vs. Dabner, S5 Am. St. Rep. 67O; Hopkins vs. Oxley Slave Co.,, S3 Fed. Rep. 912, af- l firmed by Supreme court of |. s. in 4y 1 II. S. App. 709. and by Court of Appeals | in 2S C.. c. A. 99; Moores vs. Bricklayers l Union No. 1. 23 Ohio l.. J. AS, Doremis vs | Hennesey, TIC Del, 43 l.. R. A. 797; Old
 Dominion s. s. Co. vs. Mckenna, 30 Fed 1 Rep. AS; Otis, etc, Co. vs. Union, III Fed i eos; Allis Chalmers Go. vs. Reliable Lodge Il Fed. Rep. 264; Reinecke Coal Mining Go.
 vs. Wood, 112 Fed. Rep. 4sO; Steel Co. vs 1 Murray, 80 Fed. Rep. S11; Gilbert vs I Mickle. Sandf. Oh. 3o7.
 The respondents deny the power of l court of equity to enjoln the commission | of the acts complained of in the case at ! bar. They, contend that where the acts 1 are criminal the complainant has an ade- | quate remedy by criminal prosecution
 and when they merely civil wrongs l that action for damages In court of l law will give adequate protection. It ap- pears that as against some of the acts of l the respondents the complainant has
 sought protection from the executive de- | partment of the state government. It Is
 shown that a partial siege exists and l that the employees of complainant have | their sleeping quarters within the
 closure and buildings of complainant, and 1 that they go abroad only under escort
 and protection of deputy sheriffs. Tn
 Barr vs Trade Council 30 Att. Rep. CN. J) s31, before cited, the grounds upon
 which courts of equity will give protec- 1 ton in cases of this kind clearly
 stated. The court says at page S90: "ft | appearing that injury to the business of | complainant has been knowingly, without | legal excuse, and therefore in law, ma- l liciousy inflicted by the defendants, it was an actionable wrong for which the | complainant is entitled to his remedy | And that brings us to the question raised l by the answer, and most strongly insisted l upon by counsel in the argument to whether this court has jurisdiction to
 grant relief by way of injunction. Even when there is a legal remedy equity will 1 interfere by injunction to prevent CD an
 injury which threatens rreparable dam | .if1o, tt,J,t 4t.x