Bisbee daily review., 1908-07-29

ant eo-laborers to join them in their
 nave the right. if they choose. to ac-
 cumulate funds to support those on strike, to delegate to officers the power
 Co direct the action of tbe union ana
 10 withdraw themselves and their asso-
 clates from dealings with or giving to
 those with whom they are in contro- SOME THINGS LABOR CANNOT DO.
 Labor has not the right to inJure
 their employers property. to injure
 their employers business because or
 against those who would work for him.
 or deal with him, or by carrying on
 what is sometimes known as a seconda- Try boycott against his customer or
 those with whom he deals with in busi-
 ness. All of those who sympathize with
 them may unite t0 aid them, but they
 may not through the instrumentality or "a threatened or actual boycott compel
 hired persons against their will and
 having no interest in thEir controversy
 10 come 10 their assistance These
 principles have for great many years
 been settled by the courts of this coun-
 threatened unlawful injuries to busi-
 ness like those above can only be ade- quately remedied by an injunction to
 prevent them. The Jurisdiction of
 court of equity to enjoin in such cases arises from the character of the injury and the method of intiicting it and the fact that suit for damages offers no ad-
 Tine injury Is not done by one single act which might not adequately be com pensated for in damages by suit at law, but it is the result of a constantly series of acts. each of which iu itself
 might not constitute substantial injury or might not make suit at law worth while all of which would require null uplicity of suits at law. Injuries of this class have since the foundation or courts of equity been prevented by in functions. IL has been claimed that in functions do not issue to protect any l thing but property rights and that busi- ness Is not a property right. but such a proposition is wholly Inconsistent with all the decisions Of the courts The supreme court Of the United States says { the injunction is remedy 10 protect ! property or rights of peyGniary nature and we may well submit. to the cOnsid- era te judgment of all laymeu, whether the right of man in his business is not as distinctly a right Of a pecuuiary na- ture as the right to his horse or his l house or the stock of goods on his shelf. i The instances in which injunctions to protect business have been employed by | all courts are so many that it is futile | further to discuss the proposition. It is difficult to tell the meaning of the Dem ocratic platform upon the subject. 1t says: Questions of judicial practice
 have arisen especially in connection with industrial disputes. We deem that the parties to all judicial proceedings should
 be treated with rigid impartiality and 1 that inJunCtiOus should not be issued | in any eases in which injunctions would
 
 ! involved.
 The declaration is disingenious. It seems to have been loosely drawn with , the purpose of rendering it susceptible ! to one interpretation by one set of men and to dimetrically opposite iHteTpreIa-
 tion by another. It does not aver that
 intunctiOns should not issue in indusIrl- laf disputes. but only that they should not issue because they are industrial
 disputes, and yet those responsible for , the declaration must hgve known that e
 that a dispute was industrial gave any { bass for issuing an injunction in refer ence thereto. The declaration seems to 1 be drawn in it's present vague and am
 DiguOus shape to persuade some people ] that it Is Q declaration against the issue | of injunction in any industrial dispute; 1 while at the same time it may be pos | si5le to explain to the average plain citizens to object to class distinction
 that no such intention exists. Our posi- | ton is clear and uneQutYocaL We are anxious to prevent even an appearance | Of injustice to labOr in issuing injuuC- tions, not in the spirit of favOritism to l any set of our fellow citizens, but in the [ interest of justice to all. The eNerCis- ! ing or refusing to exercise the power Ot injunction must be found in the chaSac- 1 ter of the unlawful injury and not in the character or class of persons who hct the injury.
 | The man who has a business which i is unlaWfUliy injured is entitled to the | remedies which the law has given no matter who has inflicted the injustice. | Otherwise We shall have class legislation unjust Tn principle and likely to sap the foundation of a free government. NOTICE AND HEARING BEFORE l ISSUES OF INJUNCTIONS.
 1 Leone now to the question of nOucs before issuing an injunction. It is a Ifundaaentai rule of general jurispru- Ideuce that no man shall be affected by ! a Judicial proceeding without notice and hearing This rule, however has some l times had an expression in the issuing ! Of temporary restraining orders com handing a defendant in effect to main | tain the status quo until a hearing. 1 Such a process should issue only in rare cases where the threatened change | Of the status quo would infiict irrepara- 1 ble injury if time were taken to give mo- 1 tice and a summary hearing
 The unlawful injuries usual in indus l trial lisputes such as I have described I does not become formidable except af- | ter sufficient time to give the defendants notice and hearing. 1 do not mean to l say that there may not be cases even of industrial disputes where restraining order might properly be issued without notice, but generally l think it is other wise. In some state courts and in few CT federal courts. the practice of issuing notice merely 90 preserve the status quo on the theory that it wont hurt anybody, has been too common. Many of us recaiI that the practice has been pursued in other than industrial disputes. as for instance. in corporate and stock COntro- versies like those over the Erie rail- t tice was regarded as a step of great advantage to the one who secured it and a corresponding disadvantage tO the one against whom it was secured Indeed. the chances of doing injustice in an eNpaTte application are much in creased over those where a hearing is granted, and there may be circumstances under which it may effect the defendant 10 his detriment. In the case of a law fUl strike the sending of a formidable document. restraining a number of de n on Ia n1rg HTi N fF m ferent things which the plaintiffs aver they are threatening to do, often so dis courages men always reluctant to go into strike, from continuing what is boring man feel that an injustice is
 done in the issuing of a writ without mo- tice. l conceive that in the Urea tmeElt Of this question it is the duty of the citi- gen and the legislature to view the sub- ject from the standpoint of the man who believes himself to be unjustly treated as well as from that of the community at large. l have suggested the remedy of returning in such cases to the orig inal practice under the old statute of the United States and the rules in equity adopted by the supreme court which did lnoJ permit the issuing of an injunction without notice
 In this respect the Republican conven- ton has adopted another remedy, that efficacious in securing proper consider atiOn in such cases by courts, by formulating into a legislative the best possible practice.
 Under this recommendation a statute may be framed which shall define with Considerable particularly and empha- size the exceptional character of the cases from which the restraining or ders may Issue without notice and which ! shall also provide that when they are issued. they shall cease to be operative beyond a short period during which | time notice shall be served and a hearing had unless the defendant desires post