Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1908-07-29

constant source of periodical discus
sion between the employer and the
employc, as indeed are the oHier
terms of the employment.
Advantage of Unlon
To give to employees their proper
position in such a controversy to en-
able them to maintain themselves
against employers having great cap
ital, they may wcll unite. because in
union there is strength and without
it each individual laborer and employee
would be helpless.
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 watchfulness.
Rights of Labor.
In order to induce their employer
into a 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 c~o-laborers to join
them in their union against their en-
ployer.
What Labor Can Not Lawfully DO.
What they nave not the right to do
Is to injure their employers property,
to injure their employers business by
use of threats Of methods of physical
duress against those who would work
for him, or deal with him or by car
rying on what is sometimes known as
a secondary boycott against his GUS
toners or those with whom he deals in
business. All those who sympathi2c
with them may unite to aid them in
their struggle. but they may not
through the lnstrumentality of a
threatened or actual boycott compel
third persons against their will and
having no interest in their controversy
to come to their assistance. These
principles nave for a great many years
been settled by the courts Of this coun-
try.
Threatened unlawful injuries to bus
mess, like those described above can
J only be adequately rcmedied by an in
junction to prevent them. The juris-
diction Of a court of equity to enioin
III HuGl eases dIiStS from inc tlittl dtlti
Of the injury and the method of in
~flicting it, and the fact that suit for
damages offers no adequate remedy.
The unlawful injury is not usually
lone by one single act, which might
be adequately compensated for in
damages by a suit at law, but it is the
result Of a constantly recurring series
of acts, each of which in itself might
not constitute a substantial injury or
make a suit at law worth while, ana
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 injuncttons
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business Is
not a property right; but such a prop
osltion is wholly Inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts. The SUI
preme court Of the United States says
that the injunction is a remedy to pro-
tect property or rights of a pecuniary
nature, and we may well submit to the
considerate judgment of all laymen
whether the right of a man in his bust
ness is not as distinctly a 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 injunctions to protect bust
ness nave been upheld by all courts
are so many that it is futile further
to discuss the proposition.
1t is difficult to tell the meaning of
the democratic platform upon this
subject. It says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with
industrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to al judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid inn
Partially and that injunctions
should not be issued in any cases in
which %injunctiOns would not ssue If
no industrial dispute were involved
This declaration Is disingenuous. It
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 diametriCally
opposite Interpretation by another. 1t
does not aver that injunctions should
not issue i'm Industrial disputes, but
only that they should not issue merely !
because they are industrial disputes,
and yet those responsible for the dec
laration must have known that no one
has ever maintained that the fact that
a dispute was Industrial gave any basis
for isuing an injunction in reference
thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn
in its present vague and ambiguous
shape in order to persuade some peo-
pie that II Is a declaration against the
suing Of |injunctions in any industrial
dispute, while at the same time it may
be possible to explain 10 the average
plain citizen who objects 10 class dis
that no such intention exists I
At all. our position is clear and un- 5
'quivocal We are anxious to prevent
an appearance of any injustice to I
abor in the Issuance of injunctions. s
in "A spirit of favoritism to one set /
II our fellow citizens, but of justice q
o all of our fellow citizens. The rea- &
on for exercising or refusing to eX- {
'rcise the power Of Injunction must {
Ne found in the character of the un- d
awful Injury and not in the character .
IT class of the persons who inflict his D
injury. q
The man who has "a business which Z
s being unlawfully injured is entitled {
o the remedies which the law has al G