, 1908-07-28

ween the employer and the employee,
as indeed are the other terms of the
employment.
Advantage Of Union. /
To give L employees their proper
positions in such a controversy. to en-
able them to maintain themselves
against employers having great CAPT
tai, theyrmay Well unite, because in
union there is strength and without it
each individual laborer and employe
would be helpless. The promotion OF
Industrial peace through the instru-
mentality of the trade agreement Is Of
ten one OF the results OF such union
when i~ntcliigently conducted.
Other Labor.
There is a large body of laborers.
however, skilled and unskilled, 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 w~atchfulness.
Rights Of Labor.
In order to induce their employer
into a compliance with their request
for changedterIms of employment, work
men have the right to strike in q body.
They have a right to use such persua-
| sion as they may, provided 1t does not
reach the spoint of duress, to lead
their reluctant co-laborers to join
| them In their union against their an
| ployeT. and they have a right, if they
choose. to accumulate funds to sup
| Tcrt those engaged in a strike. to dele
gate to officers the power to direct the
action of the union. and to withdraw
themselves and their associates from
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 physical
| duress against those who would work
for him. or deal with him, or by carry.
ing on what is sometimes known as a
secondary boycott against his custo-
mers or those with whom he deals in
business.
Injustice of Boycott.
All those who sympathize with them
may units to aid them in their strug-
gle, but they may not through the In
~strumentalitv of a threatened or ac-
ludl JOYFUL toIuptl ihllu pSlSOuS
against their will and having no in
terest in their controversy to come to
their assistance. These principles
have for q great many years been set
tied by the courts of this country.
Prevent Injuries by Injunction.
Threatened unlawful injuries to bust
ness. like those described above, can
only be adequately remedied by an in
junction to prevent them. The juris,
diction of a court of equity to enjoin
in such cases arises from the char
acter of the injury and the method Of
inflicting it and the fact that suit for
damages offers no adequate remedy.
Recurring Unlawful Acts.
The uniswfu. injury is not usually
done by one single act, which might
be adequately compensated for In
damages v a suit at law, but it is the
result of . constantly recurring series
of acts, each Of which in itself might
not constitute a substantial injury or
make a 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.
Not Sustained by Courts.
1t has tcen claimed that injunctions
do not Issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business is
not a property right; but such a pro.
position il wholly inconsistent with
all the decisions of the courts. The
supreme court Of the United States
says that the injunction is a remedy
to protect property or rights OF a Pc
cuniary nature, and We may well sub
MT to the considerable Judgment of all
laymen whether the right of a man In
his businets Is not rs distinctly a
| right of d pecuniary nature as the
right to lbs horse Or his house or the
stock of goods OF his shelf; and the
instances IN which injunctions to pro-
tect business have been upheld by all
courts are SO many that it Is futile
further to discuss the proposition.
Uncertain Meaning.
1t is difficult to tell the meaning of
the democratic platform upon this sub
ject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with in.
dustrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to ali judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial,
ity. and that injunctions should not be
issued in my case In which injunc-
lions would not issue If no Industrial
dispute were involved"
Susceptible to Two interpretations.
This declaration is disingenuous. 1t
seems to Eave been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering 1t
susceptible to one Interpretation by
one set of men and to a Numerically
opposite Interpretation by another. 1t
does not aver that in%junctions should
not ISSUE. in industrial disputes, but
only they should not issue merely be-
cause they are industrial! disputes. and
yet those responsible for the declara,
ton must have known that no one has
ever maintained that the fact that a
dispute was industrial gave any basis
for issuing an injunction in reference
thereto.
Two Ways for Two Men.
The declaration seems to be drawn
in its present vague and ambiguous
shape in order to persuade some peo-
ole that 1t 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
tinctions hat no such intention exists
at all.