The daily sentinel., 1908-07-28

disturbance of business incident to
such change little as possible.
The Tariffs Bad Effect on Business.
THE Democratic party in its plat
form has not had the courage of its
previous convictions on the subject
of the tariff denounced by it in 1904
as system of robbery of the many
for the benefit of the few, but it does
declare it's intention of changing the
tariff with a view to reaching a
revenue bass and thus to depart from
the protective system.
'The introduction into power of a
party with this avowed purpose can
not but halt the gradual recovery
of the more recent financial depres-
sion and produce business disaster
compared with which our recent
panic and depression will seem small
indeed.
Interest of Employer and Employee.
THE interest of the employer and
the employe never differ except when
ii comes to a division of the joint
profits of labor and capital into div
dends and wages. This must be a
constant source of periodical discus
sion between the employer and en-
ploye, al indeed are the terms of the
employment.
Advantage of Union.
''To 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 en-
ploye would be helpless. The promo
ton of industrial peace through the
instrumentality of the trade agree
c of 70 r. nf
such union when intelligently con-
Quoted.
There is large body of laborers,
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.
Rights of Labor.
In order to induce the employer
into 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, pro-
vided 1T does not 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 actions of the
union, and to withdrew themselves
and their associates from dealings
with or giving custom to those with
whom they are in controversy
What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to
do IS to injure their employers prop
erty, to injure their employers bust
ness by use of threats or methods of
physical duress against those who
would work for him or deal with him
or by carrying on what is sometimes
known as secondary boycott against
MS customers or those with whom
he deals in business. All those who
sympathize with them may unite to
aid them in their struggle but they
may not through the instrumentality
of a threatened or actual boycott
compel third persons against their
VIII and having no interest in their
controversy to come to their assist
ance. These principles have for
great many years been settled by the
courts of this country.
threatened unlawfully injuries
to business like those described
above can only be adequately be re-
medied by an Injunction to prevent
them. The jurisdiction of a court
OF equity to enjoin in such cases
arises from the character of the in
jury and the method of inflicting it
and the fact that suit for damages
offers no adequate remedy.
The injury is not done by one
single act which might be adequately
compensated for in damages by a suit
at law but it is the result of a con-
stantly recurring series of acts, each
OIL which in itself might not consti-
tute substantial injury or make
SUIT at law worth while, and all of
which would require a multiplicity of
suits at law. Injuries of this class
nave since the foundation of courts
OF equity been prevented by injunc-
ton.
II has been claimed that iniunc-
tions do not .ssue to protect ANYTHING
put property rights and that business
is not property right, but such
proposition is wholly inconsistent
with all the decisions of the courts
me supreme court of the United
states says that the injunction is a
remedy TO protect property or rights
OF pecuniary nature and we NAV
well submit to the considerate iudg
ment of all laymen whether the right
OF man in his business is not as dis
tinctly right of a pecuniary nature
as the right to his horse or to his
house or stock of goods on his shelf
instances in which injunctions to
protect business have been upheld by
all courts are so many that it is fu-
tile further to discuss the proposi-
ton.
1T is difficult to tell the meaning
OF the Democratic platform upon the
| al
cial practice have arisen especially in
connection with indu str,al disputes.
| We deem that the parties to all Judi
| cial proceedings should he treated