The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-07-30
JUDGE KELLY SAYS LABOR MAY
COMBINE TO ENFORCE STRIKE
Continued From First Page.

were using unlawful means to make
their strike success. and it was
charged that. as a result of these
methods. the business of the plaintiffs
was being greatly injured. Judge Kel-
~. however. holds that these allega-
tions have not been proved.
The plaintiffs in the case were five
plumbing firms of the city-McQuillan
Bros, the Dwyer Plumbing and Heat
ing company, Holt & Dahlby and Jo-
seph A. Hurley. the case being argued
before Judge Kelly July II. In rem
dering his opinion, among other things,
Judge Kelly says:
The Decision.
'.For the purpose of enforcing their de-
mands the strikers have since the strike
endeayored to prevent the plaintiffs fill
Ing their places. To do this they have
smgly and in twos and in threes. visited
such persons who remained in plaintiffs
service or who have since entered it and
by counsel, argument and persuasion en-
deavored to induce them to quit. In one
OF Two 3 cases statements OF non-employ-
ment II me strike succeeded. ard offers
to pay the expenses of the newcomers to
their homes have been made.
In no case has any violence or threats
OF violence or intimidation been used. On
one occasion striker admits having had
a heated conversation with new en-
ploye. Several men did quit. but they
say in their aftidavits they did so volun-
tarily.
ION two occasions strikers have enter
ed without leave upon strictly private
premises to interview workmen in plain
tiff's employ.
To warrant an injunction in a case
like this the right to it must be made
clear, the injury impending and irrepar-
able II 1t fail. 1t is a drastic remedy to
be invoked only where the ordinary proc
ess of the law is powerless for relief
Plaintiffs counsel argues that these
strikers having voluntarily relinquished
their places, they can have no further
lawful concern as to when or by whom
those places may be filed That the plain
tlffs are free to conduct their business in
their own way. That any interference by
the strikes, however peacefully conducted,
is an invasion of plaintiffs right to en-
ploy whom they will as well as the right
OF the new servant to take employment
as he chooses.
The above states the real question to
be decided in this case. Because the af-
fidavits fail to prove any so-called illegal
picketing or any use of force or intimida
ton of any kind or any trespass upon per-
son or property. warranting the writ of
injunction.
''As to the two occasions where private
property was entered, it is claimed no
intention was had to commit a willful
trespass. In one instance the parties re-
tired on leave being refused by the own
er. But that no misunderstanding may
strikers have no right. without the own
er's permission. to go upon private prop
erty for the purposes of the strike. Nor
have they any right even with the per-
mission of the owner of private lands to
go upon them. and then without permlS-
sion of the master attempt to interfere
or hinder the servant while at his work
violation of these rules willfully and
knowingly committed would call for the
courts action.
I'm the principal contention there is
more merit. Under some of the earlier de-
cisions it would be sound. These regard
ed labor unions with suspicion, and held
strikes to be criminal cOnSplracleS. Or
course it followed that everything done in
furtherance of strike was unlawful.
Methods of business have changed as
the times have and while the eternal
principles of justice never change the ap-
plications of these principles to modern
conditions are less drastic than formerly.
ut is now conceded by all courts that
men may form these unions with the pur-
pose thereby to better their condition.
They may demand reasonable increase
in wages, shorter hours of labor and the
like. They may seek to increase skill in
their trade to prevent oVercrowdlng. to
encourage others to enter this union. They
may endeavor to enforce these demands
by concerted action, may lawfully quit
their employers in body. and. provided
no force or other unlawful means be EN-
ployed, may endeaVor TO make their
strike successful.
''On the other hand, the employer, if he
be not obligated by time contracts, should
he be unwilling to grant even lawful de-
mandS of his wOrkmen, may without SUD-
jecting himself to the law. discharge his
servants in a body. He can close his bust
Mesa factory maybe-and keep 1t clos
ed until his employees are willing to come
to his terms. Meanwhile, perhaps, to use
the words of a practical man acquainted
fairly with every day life OF the poor, ne
is unconsciously. let us hope. employing
the most powerful of all agencies, neceS-
yield. He will not be violating the law
of the land, because he is free to use his
own as he chooses. OF course, II he DO
these things for greed and oppression.
there is a higher law, but of that We do
not speak.
"Laboring men whose capital is brain.
muscle and skill. have the same rlSht-
no more. no less-of combination and CO.
operation one with another for achieving
any lawful purpose, as has tnat other
force controlled by men. which though 81,
lent and unseen, is none the less powerful
and which We call money.
1.-THE merit of the demand for increase
of wages. or the reasonableness OF the
bylaws. rules, etc, pleaded In the an
swer are not involved in this motion. But
under the papers submitted the strike
must be treated as on for a lawful pur-
pose Bearing this in mind 1T seems 10
me these strikers are within their legal
rights when they seek by peaceful means
counsel persuasion and argument-to
bring the plaintiffs to their way of think
ing Because, it should not be forgotten
that in most cases the laborer builds up
the masters fortune. Because, II the
strike be honest the laborers' leaving
their places is not wholly voluntary
Because, like the master in the case OF
lockout. the servant may properly use
all lawful means to WIN ana thus 10 De
restored to his place
THE claim of plaintiffs counsel that
the defendants. having quit their places
in body. have absolutely no further
them true
that they cannot by force, or threats OF
force or intimidation. prevent others
from taking their places. But they may
by peaceful counsel. argument and per-
suasion do so. provided always their mo-
tive be the lawful advancement OF their
guild and not to maliciously injure any
one.
ton or coercion another workman from
taking or retaining employment which IS
satisfactory to him is to offend against
the plainest rule of justice. Because, the
offender not only infiictS wrong upon
mis- fellow by depriving of his livelihood.
but he denies to him that freedom which
every workingrnan proclaims and exer-
cises when he strikes.
Plaintiffs counsel has cited many au-
thorities state and federal, which L have
examined. In most. if not all. the facts
differ from those at bar. Actual violence,
threatened injury tic person and property,
boycotts for unlawful purposes or by I'M
lawful means interstate commerce. the
mails, United States receivers. in charge
of railroads give special color to them
Indeed, in looking these decisions over. L
am forced to believe that the reasons for
most of the injunctionS issued against
labor organizations in the past Is that too
often in strikes resort is had to mouth
and muscle rather than to brain.
I'm conclusion. let me catch these
golden words from lips just closed. OF
one whom the whole world honored while
living and mournS when dead-Leo XIII.