The Lafayette gazette. [volume] (Lafayette, La.) 1893-1921, 1903-03-21

Although there is an i'm
propriety, as rule, in discussing
in the press questions that are
pending before courts for deci-
sion--an improperly which is
the same whether it is or is not
| within the power of the court to
punish it,-that rule applies
rather to questions of fact, re-
garding which a tribunal might
be easily influenced, than to
questions of law, which are sub
ject to generally recognized prin-
ciples. This consideration, to-
gether with the fact that the
press of the country has very
freely discussed the question,
will warrant, even before IL final
decision, some examination into
the injunction against strikers
intending to strike which
Federal Judge at ST. Louis has is
sued.
No strike had occurred, but
the employees of the Wabash rail
road had by vote ordered the Of
ticers of their organization to call
one; and it was to prevent those
officers from obeying that order
that the Injunction under con-
:
was such a wide stretch of Judi
cial power, an act so distinctly
marked with the characteristics
of revolutionary uSurpatiOn, that
much allowance may be made
for the opinions of men who adj
wise revolutionary resistance.
But inaSmuch as regular
methods Of resistance are still
open, the intending strikers
have doubtless adopted the bet
ter course.
Observe the nature of this in
juction. 1t does not in terms
prohibit any employee of the road
from quitting work; and all
might quit at once, provided they
did so without concerted ar
For men have as
much right to discharge their
as he has to discharge
them. So, at least, the injunc-
ton order is generally con-
strued, though we fear the law
yer who should advise the strik-
ers to that effect would be bold
man. But take it so, and still
there is a most extraordinary
For in that case a
Judge has ordered men ''absO-
utely to deSiSt and refrain from
inducing, or other
wise causing, directly or indi-
rectly," other men to do what it
$ conceded they have a right
20 do.
One would hardly expect an
to be issued against
men forbidding their quitting
work individually Neither
should we expect one forbidding
heir quitting work in a body.
Yet this ST. Louis injunction
lOes the latter in effect, and if
t can do the latter it is absurd
20 suppose it cannot do the
ormer. If it may lawfully pro-
libit one man from advising
mother to stop work, it may
awfully forbid the others stop
'ing work; or else Dicken s old
,eadle was right when he de-
lOunced the law as an ass.
When an Injunction forbids the
ordering, persuading," in
[ucing,' or otherwise causing
strike, it certainly does forbid
striking. For striking consists
lot merely in the coincident
quitting of work by individuals;
t consists in a cooperative quit
ing, which is impossible unless
ONE one orders, perSuadeS,
Induces or" otherwisc" causes
t. Such an injunction being
awful, an injunction forbidding
quitting of work would
Don be Forthcoming, even if is
LOt practically involved in the
now under review.
With that, the legal relations of
MASTER and servant would be
airly adjusted for this era of
evived fcudalism. It would be
Ounded out in accordance with
he principles of law that origin
ted in the institution of villein-
ge from which some American
adgcs are drawing their legal
rinclplcS.-ThcP Public.
The Stomach Is the Man.
A ,x-nn1- f1,1