Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-07-29

t.,
choose, to accumulate funds to sup
port those engaged in strike, to dele
gate 20 officers the power to direct the
action 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 Can Not Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to do
Is to injure their employers property,
to injure their employers business
by use of threats or methods of physi-
cal duress against those who would
work for him, or deal with him, or by
carrying on what is sometimes known
as a secondary boycott against his
customers or these with whom he
deals in business. All those who
sympathize with them may unite to
aid them in their struggle. but they
may not through the inStrumcntality
or threatened or actual boycott COM
pei third persons against their will and
having no interest in their controversy
to come to their assistance These
principles have for a great many years
been settled by the courts of this
country.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
business like those described above.
can only be adequately remedied by an
injunction to prevent them. The juris-
diction of court of equity to enjoin in
such cases arises from the character
of the injury and the method OF in
fiicting il and the fact that suit for
damages offers no adequate remedy.
The unla Wful injury is not usually
done by one single act, which might
be adequately compensated for in dam
ages by a suit at law, but it is the re-
| sui of a constantly recurring series
of acts, each of which in itself might
not constitute substantial injury or
| make Il suit at law worth While, and
all of which would require a multi
plicity OF suits at law Injuries of This
class have since the foundation of
courts of equity been prevented by in
junction.
1t has been claimed that injunctions
do rot issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business is
not property right; but such a prop
osition is wholly inconsistent With all
lII OCCASIONS tI Ine courts. L he Su-
preme Court of the United States says
that the injunction is a remedy to
protect property or rights of pecu-
mary nature, and we may we'll submit
to the consderate judgment of all lay
| men whether the right of a man in his
business is not as distinctly right of
a Decuniary nature as the right to his
horse or his house or the stock of
goods on his shelf; and the instances
in which injunctions to protect bust
ness 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
subject. 1t says
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially IN connection with in
dustral disputes. We deem that the par
ties to all judicial proceedings shonld be
treated with rigid impartiality, and that
in iuncionS should not be issued in any
eases i'm which ;njnnctions would not is
sue if no industrial dispute We're invnlV-
ed"
This declaration is disingenuous. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering it
susceptible to one Interpretation by
one set of men and to a Numerically
opposite Interpretation by another. 1t
does not aver that injunctions should
not issue in industrial disputes, but
only that they should not issue mere
ly because they are industrial disputes.
and yet those responsible for the
declaration must have known that no
ono has ever maintained that the fact
| that dispute was industrial gave any
basis for issuing an injunction in ref
erence thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn
in it's present vague and ambiguous
shape in order to persuade some peo-
pie that it is a declaration against the
issuing of injunctions in any industrial
dispute, while at the same time 1t may
be possible to explain to the average
plain citizen who objects to class dis
tinctons that no such intention exists
at all. Our position is clear and un-
eQ,IiVocal We are anxious to prevent
even an appearance of any injustice
to labor in the issuance of injunctions,
not in spirit of favoritsm to one
set of our fellow citizens, but of justice
to all of our fellow citizens The reason
for exercising or refusing to exercise
tue power of injunction must be found
in the character of the unlawful in
Jury and not i'm the character or class
of the persons who infiict this injury.
The man who has q business when
is being unlawfulyy injured is entitled
to the remedies which the law has al
WAYS given him, no matter who has in
ticted the injuries. Otherwise. we
shall have class legislation unjust in
principle and likely to sap the founda-
lions of free government,
Notice and Hearing Before Issue of
Injunction.
/ come now to the question of notice
before issuing an injunction. 1t is a
fundamental rule OF general jurisprud-
ence that no man shall be affected by
judicial proceeding without notice and
bearing This rule, however, has some
times had an exception in the issuing
of temporary restraining orders COM
handing q defendant in effect to main
tain the status quo until hearing
Such a Process should issue only In
rare cases where the threatened change