Devils Lake inter-ocean and Devils Lake free press. (Devils Lake, Ramsey County, N.D.) 1905-1909, 1908-07-31

shah place hira On q level In dealing
| with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers nas,il.
ity act for interstate railroads, snd has
established 81 eight hour Law for gov
| eminent employees and On government
| construction The essence Of the re
form effected by the former is the
| abolition o. che sealoy-seryant rule
! and the Introduction OF the compare
tive negligence theory By which an en-
ployee injured In the~seEvice Of his
| employer does not lose his right to Ne
| cover because Of slight negligence on
his part Then there Is the act GRO
ytding for compensation for injury to
government employees. together with
the various stasRses requiring safety
appliances upon interstate commere
railroads for the, protection Of tseir
employees, and limiting the hours OF
their employment &. These are ali in
| stances Of the desire Of the RepDb-
liean party to, do Justice to the wage
Garner. Doubtless q more comprehen-
size measure tor coaapensatioa Of gov
eminent employees VIII be aaopted in
the future
To give to employees their proper
position Tn such a controversy. to en-
able them 10 maintain themselves
against employers having great cap
itai- they may well unite. because In
union there Is strength and without it
each individual iaborer and employee
would be helpless The promotion Of
Industrial peace through the insuu-
mentality Of the trade agreement is
often one Of the results Of such union
when tntel';gently conducted
There Is a large body of laborers.
however, skilled and 1nskiIled. who
are not organized into unions Their
rights before the law are exactly the
same as those Of the union men. and
are to be protected with the same care
and watchfuiness.
In order to induce their employer
into q compliance with their request
for changed terms Of employment
workmen have the right to strike in a
body. They have a right to use such
persuasion as they may, provided it
does not reach the point Of duress, to
lead their reluctant colaborers to Join
them tn their union against their en-
ployer. and they have a right, II they
choose, to accumulate funds to support
those engaged In strike, to delegate
to officers the power to direct the &C
ton Of the union. and to withdraw
themselves and their associates from
dealings with or giving custom to
those with whom they are in contro-
versy.
What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to do
Ii to injure their employers property.
TO fnjure their employers business by
use Of threats or methods Of physical
duress against those who would work
for him, or deal with him. or by car
Tying on what is sometimes known as
a secondary boycott against his Gus
toners or those with whom he deals.
It has been claimed that fnfunctions
do not Issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business Is
not a 'property right: but such a propo-
sition is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts. The Su-
preme Court Of the United States says
that the Injunction is a remedy to pro-
eect property or rights Of q pecuniary
nature. and we may wen submit to the
eonsiderate judgment Of all laymen
whether the right Of a man in his bust
ness is not as distinctly q right Of a
pecuniary nature as the right to his
horse or his house or the stock of goods
On his shelf; and the instances in
which fnjuncttons to protect business
have been upheld by all courts are so
many that it is futile further to discuss
the proposition.
It Is difficult to tell the meaning of
the Democratic platform upon this sub
5ect 1t says:
Questions Of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with in
dustrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial
ity, and that injunctions should not be
issued in any cases in which injunc-
lions would not issue If no Industrial
dispute were involved"
3, This declaration Is disingenuous. I,
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose OF rendering it
susceptible to one Interpretation by one
set Of men and to Numerically oppo-
site Interpretation by another. It does
not aver that injunctions should not
issue in Industrial disputes. but only
that they should not issue merely be-
cause they are industrial disputes, and
yet those responsible for the decIara-
lion must have known that no one has
ever maintained that the fact that
dispute was industrial gave any basis
for issuing an Injunction in reference
thereto. .'.t
The declaration seems to be drawn in
Its present vague and ambiguous shape
In order to persuade some people that 1t
as a declaration against the issuing OF
tnjunctions In any industrial dispute, =
while at the same time it may be pos
stble to explain to the average plain
citizen who objects to class distinctions
that no such intention exists at all.