The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1903-03-11
WORLD'S-19O4-FAIR.
LET THE COURT DECIDE.

\ careful reading and comparison of the bill and
the answer filed i'll the Wabash injunction suit dis
closes nothing the law. and indeed nothing
to the public. The press in some parts of the
country has seemingly of its way TO sensa-
tionalize' what It gathered be unusual features
i'll the As matter of fact. there is neither
novel principle novel state Of facts presented
in the pleadings thus far.
The bill upon which the temporary injunction was
granted presented Il prima facic upon which as
most lawyers who have read il agree. Judge could
have consistently refused To act Whether the facts
are true as stated is consideration which. obvious
ly, could have no bearing the courts action. in
issuing the temporary restraining order. The bill was
sworn to, and filed in accordance with law.
1t set forth that combination and conspiracy
listed the part of the defendants cause IRENE
diabe injury the complainant. The answer spe-
officially denied this state of facts and forth that
conspiracy existed. but that the employees had dele
gated the defendants To represent them for lawful
purposes and that the action Of the defendants would
not The injury which complainanis feared.
Should the court find the facts true as alleged by
the defendants answer, undoubtedly it will dissolve
the Injunction Should, however. it find them al
legged in the bill there is good for belief that
the injunction will De sustained.
The bill makes by sworn allegation :; prima facie
case of conspiracy. the object and intent Of which
is to the employees go STRIKE. for the pur-
pose Of injurinS the railroad and the public.
The bill and the answer do not raise the issue
the press and public places SllrnIiSc. of
whether an individual may be prevented by iuiunc-
lion from quitting his employers service when he
pleases. The injunction does contemplate an in
vasion Of natural liberty 10 compel him
remain in the service of another: condition of in
voluntary scrvitulc. which the supreme law of the
land says shall not exist within the United States
In general no court of equity will interfere with
the individuals right To quit for coed a bad
reason. But il is old and wellesablished prin-
cipe that conspiracy upon the part of two or more
persons, with the intent by their combined power
TO wrong others 10 prejudice the rights of the
public, is in itself Illegal. although nothing has been
done toward its execution. And it many years
ago held that conspiracy combination to procure
empioyc body of employees quit service in
violation Of the contract of service would he unaw-
fa. and in proper might he cnioncd if the in
jury threatened would bc irrcmcdiaIe law
Stated differently. the principle is that while an
intent upon the part of person njurc rights
of others is nos in itself Il wrong of which the law
will take cognzanco unless injurious act he
dQue in execution Of the unlawful intent. yet Il com
biriation of two persons with such an intent
and under circumstances that give them. when so
combined power TO do injury which they would
not possess individuals acting singly recognized
wrongful and Illegal IN itself
The law apparently recognizes Il difference also
between combination among employees having for
its object their orderly withdrawal in large numbers
in body, from the service of their employers
which is not Illegal criminal. and conspiracy
quit with the object and intent merely of as
sorting their rights. but of employing their united
energies 10 injUre others the public
IN other words. 'peaceable" and lawful strike
is- not 10 he enjoned So it has been held II is n
peaceablc strike which the of defendant
10 suggest was in contemplation at the time of the
injunction.
There are many issues of fact and issues of law
presented in the Wabash case; hut of these is
new. In those circles where the courts ac-