The San Francisco call., 1904-08-07

in the proceedings TO a less obnoxious degree
others some employed opprobrious epithets and
others did not But. even Il the partlcspanIes ms
amount OF damage which the act Of each IN
dividuai asioned or, II that were ceter-
mined, II would still be necessary 70 commences
tion which. in any event. would be barren or
financial results, IN consequence OF the I'M
ent. therefore that an action for damages
would afford plaintiff no remedy.
REMEDY OF INJUNCTION.
Now, It is cardinal rule Of equity juris-
prudence that, where injury TO property Is
threatened by the acts Of parties who are un-
dress Of an injury viii occasion a multiplicity
OF suits. or where the damage resulting is
irreparable, a court OF equity will furnish the
Injured party the only remedy that can avaii
him. to wit, the remedy Of Injunction
Hence 1t follows that the pivotal question
an injunction? Defendant's counsel claims
that he is not SO entitled; that. even If the
defendants cannot respond in damages, even
II the injury done, or threatened to be done,
was, or is, irreparable in its nature, even II
a multiplicity Of suits would be occasoned,
and even II the pecuniary damage sustained
by plaintiff would be difficult OF ascertain
ment. still court Of equity cannot enjoin the
Legislature of this State passed March 20. 1905.
forbids It fsom doing 80. (See Statutes 1905 p.
2s9)
That act, in some Of its features. is liter
ally taken from the English statute OF 1872,
which regulated criminal conspiracies. Botn
vide that no agreement contract or conbi-
nation, by two or more persons. TO DO, or 70
or furtherance of a trade dispute between an
employer and an employee, shall be criminal;
nor shall those engaged therein be indictable
or punishable for the crime OF conspiracy, II
such act. committed by person. would not
be punishable as crime. Then follows a
famed II, the English statute, to the effect
that such combination shall not be considered
as In restraint of trade; nor shall any re-
straining order or injunction be issued in re-
iation thereto: provided that nothing in this
act shall be construed to authorize force or
violence or threats thereof
In this case. the proofs, we have seen.
abundantly show threats, force and violence; !;
nevertheless, defendants counsel contends that
a court of equity is prohibited from issuing
injunctions in cases OF trade disputes" be-
tween employer and employe; and that the
legislative declaration against threats. force
or violence is applicable only 10 the subject
Of conspiracies; and that no matter what
employer. by the employe. in trade dispute
equity is powerless 70 relieve by injunction.
of 1908 admits of such a construction 1t Is
unconstitutional.
is in the nature of criminal legislation; it re-
lates TO conspiracies crimes. and attempts
! ton OF a penal statute. Il declares for in
stance that an act which is not q crime, when
committed by one, is not criminal when COM
Now an act may be unlawful without being
crime. for one is private injury, The other
public ofense
MANY CANNOT EXCUSE WRONG.
But If the act done be unlawful. and dam
age is occasioned thereby. 1t avails nothing,
under the common law, whether the wrong
/ full act was done by one or by many in COM
/ bination; in either event. the law awards re-
! dress against one and all. OF the offenders.
/ But in my opinion, IL is not true, at least
| in a civil sense. that what one may do many
may do. The law recognizes the potency of
/ numbers; t is numbers which is INSOFAR
| able element in conspiracy, combinations or
unlawful assemblies. The threat which, il
uttered by one, might be innocuous. if uttered
/ by many may well serve TO intiIndate. In
this case single picket, marching in front
/ Of plaintiffs premises. could not be regarded
/ as an obstruction 10 the street. nor could he
| amount TO an unlawful assembly. but, when
/ a band of fifty pickets. marched in circle,
and obstructed the plaintiff in the free use
/ of his property. they became and were a nui-
sance, and were guilty of a misdeneanor.
The plaintiff employed but ten men, at the
| time Of the strike. and yet several hundred
union men participated in the acts complained
of. 1t cannot be assumed that this aggrega-
| ton were seeking to obtain the places which
plaintiffs union men voluntarily abandoned;
i on the contrary. their purpose was ayoWedly