The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1908-07-31

Il
are not organized into unions. Their
same as those of the union men, and
are to be protected with the same care
and waechfulness.
| In order to induce their employer
into compliance with their request
| for changed terms of employment,
! workmen have the right to strike in
body. They have right to use such
persuasion rs 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 q right, If they
| choose, to accumulate funds to support
| those engaged in a 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.
| What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
| What they have not the right to do
is to iniure their employers property,
]
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 as
a secondary boycott against his GUS
| toners or those with whom he deals.
1t has been claimed that injunctions
| do not issue to protect anything but
| property rights, and that business is
| not a property right; but such propo-
| sition 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 pecuniary
nature, and we may we'll submit to the
considerate judgment of all laymen
whether the right of a man in his bust
ness is not as distinctly q right Of n
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 business
have 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 sub
| ject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with in
| dustrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial
ity, and that injunctions should not be
issued in any cases in which injunc-
tons would not issue If no Industrial
dispute were involved"
This declaration is disingenuous. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering it
susceptible to one Interpretation by one
set of men and to Numerically oppo-
site Interpretation by another. 1t does
not aver that injunctions 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 declara-
ton must have known that no one has
ever maintained that the fact that
dispute was Industrial gave any basis
for issuing on injunction in reference
thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn in
it's present vague and ambiguous shape
in order to persuade some people that ii
Is declaration against the issuing Of
injUnctions in any Industrial dispute,
while ut the same time it may be pos
slhlo to explain to the average plain
citizen who objects to class distinctions
that go such intention exists at all.
Our position Is clear and unequivocal.
We are anxious to prevent even an ap-
pcarance OF any injustice to labor in
the issuance of injunctions. not in
spirit of favoritism to enc set of our
fellow citizens. but of justice TO all Of
our fellow citizens. The reason for ex-
ercising or refusing to exercise the
power of injunction must be found In
the character Of the unlawful injury
and not in the character or class Of the
persons who indict this injury
The man who has q business which
is being unlawfully injured is entitled
10 the remedies which the law has al
ways given him, no matter who has in
ficted the injuries. Otherwise, we
shall have class legislation unjust In
principle and likely to sap the founda
tons Of free government.
Notice aad Hearing Before Issue of
Injunction.
come now to the question of no.
tice before issuing an injunction. 1t Is
3 fundamental rule of general juris.
prudence that no man shall be affected
by judicial proceeding without notice
and hearing This rule, however, has
sometimes had an exception in the is
suing of temporary restraining orders
commanding a defendant In effect TO
maintain the status quo until hear
ing. Such a process should issue only
In rare cases where the threatened
change of the status quo would inflict
irreparable injury If time were taken
to give notice and n summary hearing
The unlawful injury usual In indus
trial disputes, such as have describ-
ed, does not become formidable except
after sufficient time in which to give
the defendants notice and hearing
l do not mean to say that there may
not be cases even in industrial dis
DuteS where n restroinin order might