The Washington herald., 1908-07-29

lstrumentality Of the trade agreement IS
often one Of the results OF such union
when intelligently conducted
Other Labor.
/ There IS a large body OF Iaborers. how
/ ever. skilled and unskiiled. who are not
organized into unions Their rights be-
I f0re the law are exactly the same as
those o. the union men. and are 10 be
! protected with the same care and watch
/ fulness-
Rights of Labcr.
In order 70 induce their employer into
la compliance with their request for
/ changed terms Of employment. workmen
I have the right 10 strike in a body. They
I have q right 70 use such persuasion as
/ they may. provided It does not reach the
point OF duress. 70 lead their reluctant
Ico-laborers 20 join them IN their union
against their employer. and they have a
Z right. Il they choose. 10 accumulate funds
I 10 support those engaged in a strike, 20
delegate 20 officers the power 70 direct
l the action OF the union. and 10 withdraw
themselves and their associates from deal
I ings with or giving custom 10 those with
whom they are in controversy.
What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
I What they have not the right TO do IS
i 10 injure their employers property, 10 In
I j1re their employers business by use OF
threats OF methods OF physical duress
/ against those who would work for him.
& or deal with him. or by carrying on what
/ IS sometimes known as a secondary boy
I colt against his customers or those with
whom he deals in business. All those
who sympathize with them may unite to
aid them n their struggle. but they may
not through the i1strumeutulity OF a
threatened or actual boycott compel third
persons against their VIII and having 10
( interest IN their controversy 10 come 10
+ their assistance These principles have
/ for a great many years been settled by
/ the courts OF this country
/ Threatened unlawful injuries 10 bust
/ ness. Ike those described above. can only
I be adequately remedied by Al Injunction
Z % prevent them The jurisdiction OF
4 court Of equity % enjoin in such cases
{ arises from the character Of the injury
I and the method Of inficting it and the
I fact that suit for damages offers an ade-
quate remedy. The unlawful injury IS
NOT usually done by one single act. which
might be adequately compensated FOR in
I damages by a suit at law. but il IS the
result of a constantly recurring series OF
Z acts. each OF which in itself might not
I constitute a substantial injury or make
a suit al law worth while. and all OF
which would require q multiplicity OF
suits al law Injuries OF this class have
since the foundation Of courts Of equity
I been prevented by Injunction
! L has been claimed that injunctions do
not issue TO protect anything but prop
ercy rights. and that business IS not a
/ property right but such proposition is
Z wholly inconsistent with all the decis-
I ions OF the courts The Supreme Court
Of the United States says that the in
junction Is q remedy 10 protect property
OF rights Of a PeCUniary nature. and we
may well submit TO the considerate 1udg-
ment OF all layuen whether the right OF
I a man IN his business is not as distinctly
a riCht Of a pecuniary nature as the right
10 his horse or his house or the stock Of
goods on his shelf: and the instances II
Z which iniunctions 70 protect business
I have been upheld by all courts are so
many that Il is futile further to discuss
I the proposition.
I II is difficult 10 tell the meaning OF the
/ Democratic platform upon this subject
I II says
Ouestic-s of sudiciaI Practice have arisen es7e-
cialIy IN connection With industrial disputes We
deem Thar thc parties 70 az judicial F7uCesi1Es
should b. trlafed win rigid inra-ti1ii:y and Tat
ini1ncilous should not bs isszed n any cases IN
which iniJnc1i0us would uo- issue # 10 industrial
! dispute were involved
This declaration is Gisingenuous Il
/ seems TO have been loosely drawn with
/ the especial purpose Of rendering Il sus-
! ceptibie to one Interpretation by one set
Of men and 50 a diOmeJricaily opposite in
/ depreciation by another Il does not aver
that injunCtIons should not issue merely
/ because they are industrial disputes. and
yes those responsible for the declaration
must have known that no one has ever
maintained that the fact that a dispute
was Industrial gave any basis for issuing
an injunction IN reference thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn IN
its present vague and ambiguous shape
in order 10 persuade some people that il is
a declaration against the issuing of in
functions in any Industrial dispute, while
at the same time il may be possible 10
explain 10 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 appearance OF any in
justice TO labor IN the issuance OF injUnc-
Iicns. not in a spirit OF favoritisn 70 one
set Of our fellOU-cltizens, but for justice
10 all Of or. feIIow-ciJizens. The reason
for exercising OF refusing to exercise the
power OF injunction must be found IN the
. ClldI AILEE OF ne ALAdN4NA INJURY anu lOL
in the character OF class Of the persons
who inhict this injury.
The man who has a business which IS
being unlawfuiiy injured is entitled TO the
remedies which the law has always given
him. no matter who has inflicted the in
juries- Otherwise. We shall have class
legislation unjust in principle and likely
to sap the foundations of a free govern
ment-
Notice and Hearing Before Issue of
Injunction.
come now 10 the question Of notice
before issuing an injunction. Il is a fun
damental rule OF general Jurisprudence
that no man shall be affected by a judicial
proceeding without notice and hearing.
This rule. however. has sometimes. had
an exception il the issuing OF temporary