Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-06

and the court of equity may arrest him
and fine or imprison him for his ''con-
tempt" in disobeying its order. This ii
can do swiftly and sharply and thorough
ly. And the very definite prospect OF
such a punishment is naturally far more
of deterrent than the threats of A to
bring suit at law.
Thus a very striking advantage of ar
injunction may be seen at once. 1t puts
down lin black and white just what E
must or must not do with reference to the
matter covered by the injunction. In the
illustration. until B has actually cut down
the tree and has been sued by A and has
had judgment entered against him no one
knows whether the court will hold him
liable or say he acted within his rights
But if court of equity has previously
ordered him not to destroy the tree all
doubt is removed and his duties are clear
Injunctions from time immemorial have
been asked for and obtained in an in
finite variety of matters. They have for
hidden chemical or paper works from
polluting streams, one man from infring-
ing another's patent and even in Texas
one has directed q man not to ALLEVIATE
the affections of his neighbours wife.
In 1858. during a strike in England
the members of the labor union involved
were ordered by an injunction of the
equity court not to issue certain placardS
requesting "all we'll wishers Of the union
to keep away from the employers Offices
This established a precedent for the is
suance of injunctions In labor disputes
a practice which was soon adopted in this
country, where 1t spread more rapidly
than in England, especially as employed
by the federal courts.
The reason is evident enough Strikes
as rule display as prominent character
istics, first, a tendency on the part of the
strikers to resort to violence. and second
ly. development of local sympathy with
the strikers. Under such circumstances
ii is difficult for those against whom the
strike is directed to prevent great and I'M
lawful interference with their business
and property.
Judges Exceed Power.
twenty-five years ago the only way for
American operators to deal with such
matters was to hire private detectives, a
device similar to that of A in the illustra-
ton standing guard at the tree with a
shotgun. But since that time the more
BILE and orderly procedure of an
appeal TO the court of equity has become
the rule. That tribunal issues it's order
or injunction. directed to the strikers and
their leaders, forbidding them to inter-
fere with the property or operations OF
their former employers. Sometimes these
orders have gone too far and judges have
exceeded their powers in the issuance.
Thus. in a well known case a court for
body. or. in other words to strike. But
this decision was promptly reversed by
the higher court. which said that men
have a perfect right to strike and leave
employment, individually or in a body.
whenever they wish to do so. And this
is now settled that men cannot be ordered
by a court of equity not to strike. To il
lustrate what the court may do. we may
refer briefly to an injunction which, to
the ordinary person. will probably not
seem unreasonable, but which has, never
theless. been attacked bitterly by those
power. 1t was the orden granted in 1897
by Judge Jackson of the United States
court TO the Monongah Coal and Coke
Company of West Virginia against Debs
and his followers (striking employes). 1t
was designed, 50 it read. to prohibit the
defendants from "fn any wise interfering
with the management, operation or con-
Quoting of said mines by their owners or
those operating them, either by menaces,
threats or any character of intimidation
used to prevent the employees of said
mines from going to or from said mines
Accordingly. the defendants were or
dered not to (a) go on the coal company's
property for the purpose of interfering
with or intimidating employees or holding
meetings on said property: Co nor to as
sembie on roads from the mines to the
miners houses along which the miners
had to pass and interfere with them
by threats. menaces or intimidation.
1t is difficult to see in what respect such
an order deprived the strikers Of any
rights they should have enjoyed.
In 1895 the celebrated Debs case was
decided by the Supreme Court of the
United States. An injunction had been
issued commanding the leaders and men,
bers of labor unions not to interfere in
any way with trains running out of Chi
cago and bearing United States mail.