Vilas County news. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1896-1927, 1908-08-05

IHOy SuOu1Q receive IN publican
principles, and as to tl=he tariff
should be raised. A Y In of the
tariff undertaken uponi 90 90 inciple,
which is at the basis present
business system, begun 10 10. " upon
the incoming Of the nsding iinistra-
ton, and considered al specsRl ses,
sion with the preliminary investiga
tions already begun by the appropr1'
ate committees of the house and senN
ate, will make the disturbance of bust
ness incident to such a change as lit
tie as possible.
The speaker said that in order
to induce their employer into
a compliance with their request for
changed terms of employment, work
men have the right to strike in a body
They have right to use such persuan-
sion as they may, provided it does noI
reach the point of duress, to lead their
reluctant co-laborers to join them in
their union against their employer,
and they have a right, if they choose,
TO accumulate funds to support those
engaged in a strike, to delegate to
officers the power to direct the action
of the union, and to withdraw them
selves and their associates from deal
ings with, or giving custom to those
with whom they are in controversy"
What Labor Can Not 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
rying on what is sometimes known as
a secondary boycott business. All
those who sympathize with them may
unite to aid them in their struggle,
but they may not through the instru-
mentality Of a threatened or actual
boycott compel third persons against
their will and having no interest in
their controversy to come to their as
sistance. These principles have for a
great many years been settled by
the courts of this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
, business, like those described above,
can only be adequately remedied by
, an injunction to prevent them. The
jurisdiction of court of equity to en-
join in such cases arises from the
character of the injury and the
method of inf1icting it and the facc
that suit for damages offers no ad5-
quate remedy. The unlawful injury
, is not usually done by one single act,
which might be adequately compensa-
ted for in damages by a suit at law,
but it is the result of constantly re-
curing series Of acts, each of which
in itself might not constitute a sub
stantial injury or make a suit at law
worth while, and all of which would
require a multiplicity of suits at law.
injuries of this class have since the
! foundation of courts of equity been
prevented by injunction.
1T has been claimed that injunc-
lions do not issue to protect anything
but property rights, and that business
, is not a property right; but such a
| proposition is wholly inconsistent with
all the decisions of the courts. The
supreme court of the United States
! says that the injunction is a remedy
to protect property or rights of a pc
cuniary nature, and we may we'll sub
! NIT to the cOnsiderate judgement Of
all laymen whether me right of man
! in his business is not as distinctly a
right of a 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 pro-
| tect business have been upheld by all
courts are so many that it is futile fur
Their to discuss the proposition.
Hearing Before Issue of Injunction.
| 4 come now to the question of not
ice before issuing an INDUCTION. It is
! fundamental rule of general jurispru-
dence that no man shall be affected
| by judicial proceeding without notice
and hearing. This rule, however, has
sometime had an exception in the is
suing of temporary restraining orders
commanding a defendant in effect to
maintain the status quo until a hear
ing. Such a process should issue only
in rare cases where the threatened
change of the status quo would infict
irreparable injury if time were taken
to give notice and a summary hearing.
The unlawful injury usual in indus
trial disputes, such as | have de-
scribed, does not become formidable
except after sufficient time in which
to give the defendants notice and a
hearing. l do not mean to say that
there may not be cases even in indus
trial disputes where a restraining Or
der might properly be issued without
notice, but, generally, l think it is
otherwise. In some State courts, and
in fewer federal courts, the practice
5f issuing a temporary restraining or
der without notice merely to preserve
the status quo on the theory that it
won't hurt anybody, has been too COM
mon Many of us recall that the prac-