The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1907-06-01
POSITION Of LABOR
ON THE INJUNCTION
Absurdity of Capitalistic Agit-
ators Against Labor Leg
islation Is Amusing.
Injunction Used Against La
Dor in Industrial Dispute
a Mass Of Verbiage.

labor legislation is amusing. Any pro-
posed law recognizing the rights of
labor is denounced as "class legisla-
ton" and opposed to the common
good. Every effort is put forth to
mislead the public as to the quality of
legislation desired by organized labor.
In an article over the signature of
J. w. Van Cleave whoever penned
1t, the writer takes pains to show
that the labor unions would have the
power of courts to grant injunctions
abolished. This, of course, is placing
labor In wrong light, but such art
1cles are perused by readers who are
not acquainted with the labor move
ment and they naturally have some
weight. One of his bright arguments.
and one that the press seems to take
especial delight in disseminating is. as
follows:
II 1t were removed I might go and
dig trench under the wall of YOUR
100000 building, and nothing could
d1ssuade me or stop me.
you might do an almost irreparable
damage to my business, which, let us
say for the sake Of argument, pays it's
bills, including wages, and so far as
the statute and the moral law are
concerned, may be permitted to con-
tinue.
You might do it by preventing me
from employing men to wish to work
for me.
"You might do it by surrounding
the mill or workshop by peaceful
picket lines and by assaulting or
frightening those whose perfect right
1t was to come to me to work.
This is misleading as a whole, and
Van Cleave is aware of that fact
Labor has no thought of letting down
the bars to disdemeanor and crime, or
| removing any reasonable statutory re-
strictions.
What labor wants is not to take the
power of injunction from the courts
but to put a stop to the abuse of that
power in cases that are not properly
subject to the restraint of a court OF
| equity. 1t wants to remove from
judges a power which enables them
to grant an injunction on any kind OF
trumped-up claim, and later pass judy
ment on the bare testimony of hired
detective who charges that the orders
Of the court have been violated. II
wants to have equal protection, under
the law, with vested rights"
The chief abuse Of the power of in.
junction, and Of which labor complains
loudest, is where 1t is so manipulated
as to the employer in position to :wea,
out his employees when they engage If
O c$1 IYo f@
legal rights.
organized labor justly claims that
the Issuance Of writs of injunction In
labor disputes is unwaranted by law
Some of our most learned jurists-
notably Judge Gary, of Chicago-have
taken similar position, and refused
to issue writs Of that character, hold
ing that the issuance of such Writs
Is an infringement upon the rights
guaranteed by the law and the con-
stitution. AS a matter of fact, what
is the customary procedure in such
cases? The attorneys for a firm that
IS IN trouble with it's employees pres
ent petition to a court, praying for
temporary injunction. The language
used in such petitions is ambiguous
and doubtless intended to be mislead-
ing; In fact, it is not unusual for the
opposing attorneys, and even the court
itself, to afterward disagree as to the
meaning of the language used in such
instances. The court accepts the petit
ton as presentation Of the facts in
the case, and issues a temporary re-
stralnlng order, which in effect for
bids the strikers to perform any acts
covered therein. Some of these re-
stra1nlng orders, issued on petition
as above set forth, and without actu-
al knowledge by the court of the facts
IN the case, forbid the defendants from
quitting work, from contributing to
the support Of their members, from
even speaking to people on the street,
or visiting them at their homes, or
from making others acquainted with
the cause of the dispute, or trying to
peaceably induce them to refrain from
aiding the employers involved.
Inc lnjunctions' issued in labor dis
putes are usually a mass of legal
verb1age, intended to mystify and
oVeraWe the average citizen, and to
create an impression among the work.
ers that they are exceeding their legal
rights and violating the laws of the
land. These writs have also been U.s.
ed as means to intimidate the wives
and families of strikers. Organized
labor claims that, in issuing such in
functions, the courts virtually become
strlke-breakers. After a Temporary
injunction is issued, the employer is
totally Indifferent as to whether a.
hearing Is granted or not, and the
longer such hearing is postponed the
better he is satisfied. There are sew
eral instances on record where tenn
orary injunctions have been set aside
after hearing, by the court which
originally issued the order. Further
more. it is not unusual for the Judge
who issued the temporary writ to 40
modify and interpret that document
as to leave but little of the oristnal
order. But the power Of the union
may be weakened, and the strike lost
during the period that may elapse be-
fore a hearing Is granted, while pun
1shment may be inflicted upon in
nocent persons for disobeying an H.
legal mandate. That is the reason
why Van Cleave, and his assooio+a s