Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-07-28
their associates from dealings with. or giving custom to those with whom tneS are in controversy.

their associates from dealings Wltn. " giving custom to those with whom they are in controversy.
 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 or physlcai duress against those who would work for him. or deal with him. or by car rying on what is sometimes known as secondary boycott against his GUS toners or those with whom he deals sn business. All those who sympathize with them may unite to aid them ID their struggle but they may nor through the instrumentaiity of q threatened or actual boycott compel 1 third persons against their will and having no interest in their controversy 1 to come to their assistance. These principles have for great many years been settled by the courts of this coun- 1 try.
 Threatened unlawful injuries to 1 business, like those described aboves can only be adequately remedied by an injunction to prevent them. The jurisdiction of court of equity 10 ent join in such cases arises from the character of the injury and the method of inflicting 1t and the fact that suit l for damages offers no adequate reme- dy. The unlawful injury is not usual- Iy done by one single act, which might
 be adequately compensated for in dam
 ages by suit at law, but 1t is the re-
 suit of constantly recurring series or
 acts, each of which in itself might not constitute substantial injury or make
 a suit at law worth while, and all or l which would require multiplicity or
 suits at law. Injuries of this class have since the foundation of courts or
 equity been prevented by injunction.
 It has been claimed that injunctions
 do not issue to protect anything bur
 property rights. and that business is
 not a property right; but such prop
 osition 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
 tect property or rights of pecuniary nature. and we may well submit to
 the considerate judgment of all lay men whether the right of man in his
 business is not as distinctly a right or
 pecuniary nature as the right to
 his horse or his house or the stock or
 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. It says:
 "ouestions of judicial practice have i, arisen especially in connection with inc
 dustrial disputes. We deem that the par
 ties to all judicial proceedings should be
 treated with rigid impartiality. and that injunctions should not be issued In any
 eases in which injunctions would not is-
 sue if no industrial dispute were in-
 yolved."
 This declaration is disingenuous. It seems to have been loosely drawn with the especial purpose of rendering 1t
 susceptible to one interpretation by one , set of men and to diametricaiiy op-
 posite interpretation by another. It does not aver that injunctions should not issue in industrial disputes. but only that they should not issue merely because they are industrial disputes, 1 and yet those responsible for the dec laration must have known that no one ' nas ever maintained that the fact thai , . dispute was industrial gave my ba. sis for issuing an injunction in refer 5 ence thereto.
 The declaration seems to be drawn t in its present vague and ambiguous i. shape in order to persuade some people - that it is a declaration against the is- l suing of injunctions In any industrial q dispute, while at the same time 1t may 1. be possible to explain to the average : plain citizen who objects to class dis. : functions that no such intention exists , at all. Our position is clear and un' : equiyocal. We are anxious to prevent : even an appearance of any injustice to , labor in the issuance of injunctions : not in a spirit of favoritism to one sci |. of our fellow citizens. but of justice tc i. all of our fellow citizens. The reason f for exercising or refusing to exercise i. the power of injunction must be found o in the character of the unlawful injury :. and not in the character or class of ths i. persons who lnfict this injury. f The man who has a business which i. is being unlawfuIly injured is entitled s to the remedies which the law has al F ways given him. no matter who hal { inflicted the injuries. Otherwise. VI . shall have class legislation unjust II
 principle and likely 10 sap the founda
 tons of a free government
 s Notice and Hearing Before Issue q
 Injunction.
 4 come now to the question of noticl n before issuing an injunction. It is 1 t fundamental rule of general jurispru A dence that no man shall be affected pi . judicial proceeding without notic' 2 and hearing. This rule. however. hal d sometimes had an exception in the is i suing of temporary restraining order'
 commanding a defendant in effect | maintain the statHs quo until bearing
 Such . process should Issue only Il V rare cases where the threatened chang ' of the status euo would innict irrepara ble injury if time were taken to giv notice and summary hearing. The un lawful Injury usual in industrial dis |, putes. such as have described. doe ti "A E...a,.,a fo~v,taahfs a~c,.r& mfsa