Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1908-08-13

shall place him On level In dealin.
with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers nabil-
ity act for interstate railroads, and has
established an eight hour law for gov
eminent employees and on government
construction. The essence Of the re.
abolition of the fellow-servant rule.
and the introduction of the compare
tive negligence theory by which an en-
ployee injured In the service of his
employer does not lose his right to re-
cover because Of slight negligence on
his part. Then there Is the act pro-
viding for compensation for injury to
government employees, together with
the various statutes requiring safety
appliances upon Interstate commerce
railroads for the protection q their
employees, and limiting the hours OF
their employment These are all In
stances Of thu desire Of the Repub-
hcan party to DO Justice 10 the wage
Garner. Doubtless Q more comprehen-
sfvs measure for compensation Of gov
eminent employees win b adopted In
the future.
To give to employees their proper
position In such controversy, to en-
able them to maintain themselves
against employers having great cap
ftal, they may well unite, because In
union there Ii strength and without It
each individual laborer and employee
would be helpless. The promotion of
industrial peace through the instru-
mentality of the trade agreement is
often one of the results OF such union
when intelligently conducted.
There is a large body of laborers,
however, skilled and unskiIled, 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.
In order to induce their employer
into a compliance with their request
for changed terms of employment,
workmen have the right to strike In
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 co-laborers to Join
them In their union against their en-
ployer, and they have right If they
choose, 10 accumulate funds to support
those engaged In a strike, to delegate
to officers the power to direct the &C
tion of the union, and to withdraw
themselves and their associates from
dealings with, or giving custom to
those with whom they are In contro-
versy.
What Labor Cannot 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 car
rytng ON what Is sometimes known as
secondary boycott against his Gus
toners OF those with whom he deals
1t has been claimed that tnjunctions
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business Is
not a property right; but such a propo-
sition 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 a pecuniary
nature, and we may we'll submit to the
considerate judgment OF all laymen
whether the right of man in his bust
ness is not as distinctly right Of
pecuniary nature as the right to his
horse or his house or the stock of goods
on his shelf; and the instances In
which injmctions to protect business
have been upheld by all courts are 30
many that It is futile further to discuss
the proposition.
It is difficult to tell the meaning Of
the Democratic platform upon this sub
ject. It says:
Questions Of Judicial practice have
arisen especially In connection with In
dustrial disputes We deem that the
parties tr all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial
fly. and that fntmctions should not BE
issued IN any cases In which tnjunc-
lions would not issue n no Industrial
dispute were involved"
This declaration IL dfsfngenuous. II
seems TO have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose Of rendering II
susceptible TO one Interpretation by one
set Of men and 10 q dfameutcally oppo-
site Interpretation by another. II DOES
not aver that intuncttons should not
issue In Industrial disputes, but only
that they should not issue merely be-
cause they are Industrial Disputes, and
yet those responsible for the decfaFs-
tio0 must have known that no one has
ever maintained that tho fact chat
dispute was industrial gsve any basis
for issuing an injunction In reference
thereto
The declaration seemsSto be drawn In
Its present vague and ambiguous shape
In order to persuade some people that It
Is declaration against the issuing OF
In any Industrial Dispute,
while at the same time It may be pos
sible to explain TO the average plain
citizen who objects 10 class distinctions
that no such intention exists at all.
Our position is clear and unequivocal
We are anxious to prevent even an ap-
pearance Of any injustice 10 labor In
the issuance Of intunctions, not In q
spirit of favoritism to one set OF our
fellow citizens, but Of Justice to all Of
our fellow citizens The reason for ex-
ercising or refusing to exercise the