Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-07-29


with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers Habtl-
ity act for interstate railroads, and has
established an eight hour law for gov
ernment employees and on government
construction. The essence of the re-
form effected by the former is the
abolition Of the fellow-seryant 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 Of their
employees, and limiting the hours Of
their employment. These are all in
stances Of the desire Of the Repub-
lean party to do justice to the wage
Garner. Doubtless more comprehen-
sive measure for compensation Of gov
eminent employees will be adopted in
the future. # r.
70 give to employees their proper
position in such controversy, to en-
able them to maintain themselves
against employers having great cap
ital, they may well unite, because in
union there is 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 1aborers.
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.
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 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 a right, If they
choose, to accumulate funds to support
those engaged in strike, to delegate
to officers the power to direct the ac-
ton 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. q '.
What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to dc
is to injure their employers property,
to tnjure 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.
rying on what is sometimes known az
Ia secondary boycott against his Gus.
toners or those with whom he deals.
| It has been claimed that injunctons
I do not issue to protect anything but
| property rights, and that business Ii
not property right; but such a propo
sition is wholly inconsistent with al
/ the decisions Of the courts. The Su
preme Court Of the United States says
| that the injunction is remedy to pro
tect property Or rights of pecuniary
nature, and we may well submit to thu
considerate judgment Of all laymer
J whether the right of man in his bust
I; ness is not as distinctly right Of 6
pecuniary nature as the right to hi
horse or his house or the stock of goods
on his shelf; and the instances IL
which injuncHons to protect business
have been upheld by all courts are 81
many that it is futile further to discuss
the proposition.
1t is difficult to tell the meaning o.
the Democratic platform upon this sub
ject. IT says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially In connection with In
dustial disputes. We deem that thu
parties to all judicial proceeding
should be treated with rigid impartial
ity, and that injunctions should not b,
issued In any cases in which injunc
tons would not issue If no industrial
dispute were involved"
This declaration is disingenuous. I
seems to have been loosely drawn witt
the especial purpose of rendering /
susceptible to one Interpretation by ont
set Of men and to Numerically oppo
site Interpretation by another. It doe.
: not aver that injunctions should No
issue In Industrial disputes, but onl.
that they should not issue merely be
cause they are industrial disputes, ant
yet those responsible for the declara
ton must have known that no one ha!
ever maintained that the fact that
dispute was industrial gave any basil
for issuing an Injunction In reference
thereto.
4 The declaration seems to be drawn IL
its present vague and ambiguous shap,
1 in order to persuade some people that /
is declaration against the issuing O
injunctions In any industrial dispute
4 while at the same time it may be pos
sible to explain to the average plaiI
citizen who objects to class distinction!
that no such intention exists at all
Our position Is clear and unequivocal