The San Francisco call., 1908-07-29

ness like those above can only be ade-
quately remedied by an injunction 10
prevent them. The Jurisdiction or
court OF equity to enjoin in such cases
arises from the character of the INJURY
and the method of infiicting it. and the
fact that suit for damages offers no
adequate remedy.
The injury is not done by one single
act which might be adequately COM
pensated for in damages by SUIT al
law, but it is the result of constantly
recurring series of acts, each of which
in itself might not constitute SUB
Stantial injury and might not make
suit at law worth while, all OF when
would require a multiplicity OF suits
since the foundation of courts or
equity been prevented by injunction
1t has been claimed that inJunctions
do not issue to protect anything put
property rights, and that business is
not a property right, but such prOpo-
sition is wholly inconsistent with al
the decisions of the courts; Inc su-
preme court of the United States says
that the injunction is remedy to
protect property or rights or pc
cuntary nature, and we may Wen SUD-
laymen whether the right of man In
his business is not as distinctly
right of a pecuniary nature as the
right to his horse or his house, or the
stock of goods on his shelf.
The instances in which injunct1opS
to protect business have been uphetd
by all courts are so many that II rs
futile further to discuss the proposi-
tion. 1t is difficult to tell the meaning
of the democratic platform upon the
subject. 1t says: Quesuons OF 99-
in connection with industrial dis
putes. We deem that the parties to
all judicial proceedings should oe
treated with rigid impartiality and
that injunctions should not be lsued
in any cases in which injuncttons
would not issue If no Industrial dis
pute were involved"
The declaration is diSingenuous. II
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the purpose of rendering ii susceptible
to one Interpretation by one set or men
and to diametrically opposite interpre-
tation by another. 1t does not aver
that injunctions should not issue In in
.dustrial disputes, but only that they
should not issue because they are in
dustrial disputes. and yet those reSpOn-
sible for the declaration must have
known that no one ever maintained
that the fact that dispute was in
dustrial gave any basis for issuing an
Injunction in reference thereto. The
declaration seems to be drawn In Its
present vague and ambiguous shape 10
persuade some people that 1t is decla-
ration against the issue OF 1nJunc-
tionS in any industrial dispute; while at
the same time il may be possible to
explain to the average plain citizen VINO
objects to class distinction that no such
intention exists. Our position is clear
and unequiVocaL We are anxious to
prevent even an appearance of injustice
to labor in issuing injunctions. not in
the spirit of favoritism to any set of
our fellow citizens, but in the interest
of justice to all. The reason of eXer-
cising or refusing TO exercise the power
of injunctionS must be found IN the
character. of the unlawful injury and
not in the character or class of persons
who infiict the injury.
The man who has a business which
is unlawfully injured is entitled to the
remedies which the law has given, no
matter who has inflicted the injustice.
Otherwise we shall have class legisla-
tion, unjust in principle and likely to
sap the foundations of a free govern
ment.