The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1908-07-31

shall place him on Level In dealing
with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers liabil- |
ity act for interstate railroads. and has
established an eight hour law for gov
eminent employees and on government
| construction. The essence OF the re- /
form effected by the former Is the
abolition of the fellow servant rule,
and the introduction of the compara-
| 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-
lican party to do justice to the wage
Garner Doubtless a more comprehen-
sive measure for compensation of gov
eminent employees will be adopted in
the future.
To give to employees their proper
position in such q 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 1t
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 Il large body of laborers.
however. skilled and unskilled, who
are not organized into unions. Their
rights before the law are exactly tie
same as those of the union men, aud
are to he protected with the same care
and watchfulness.
In order TO induce their employer
. into q compliance with their request
, for changed terms of employment,
workmen have the right to strike in
body. They have Il right TO use such
persuasion as they may. provided II
: 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 right, If they
choose, to accumulate funds to support
j. those engaged in a strike. to delegate
! to officers the power to direct the ac'
I ton Of the union, and TO withdraw
Q themselves and their associates from
t dealings with. or giving custom 10
t those with whom they are in contro.
g versy.
What Labor Cannot Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to do
is to iniurc their employers property,
to iniure 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
secondary boycott against his Gus
toners or those with whom he deals.
It has been claimed that injunctions
do not issue TO protect anything but
property rights, and that business is
not a property right; but such n prOpo-
Yition is wholly inconsistent with al
the decisions of the courts. The ST..
preme Court OF the United States says
that the injunction is 4 remedy TO pro
tect property or rights Of a pecuniary
nature. and we may well submit TO the
considerate Judgment of all laymcn
whether the right of man in his bust
ness Is not rs distinctly n right of q
pecuaiary nature as the right to his
horse or his house or the stock of goods
on his shelf; and the instances IN
2 which injunctions to protect business
+ have leen upheld by al courts are so
, many that IL is futile further to discuss
the proposition.
II is GiGcult to tell the meaning OF
the Democratic platform upon this sub
jet. It says:
5 Questions Of judicial practice haze
= arisen especially fin connection with IN
: dusuia disputes We deem that tie
2 parties 70 a,l judicial procee3iura
should he tel cd with rigid Impartial
p ity, and that ll,Uactions should not le
5 issued in any cases in which iniuu
lions would not issue If no industrial
) dispute were Involved"
= This declaration Is disiuga2uous 7
seems 90 have been loosely drawn wi Ia
the especial purpose Of rendering e
susceptible to one in expectation by one
set Of mcn and TO diametrically opp,
, site Interpretation by another 1t does
not aver that iuiunctions should not
issue in industrial disputes, but only
that they shorld not issue merely he
cause they are industrial disputes. and
yet those responsible for the decla.a
ton must have known that 40 one las
ever maintained that the fact that
dispute was industrial gave any basis
for issuing an injunction in referenc,
thereto.
The declaration seems TO he drawn in
it's present vague and ambiguous shape
, in order 10 persuade some people that il
is a declaration against the issuing Of
injunctions III any Industrial dispute,
while at the same time ii may be pos.
70. f.,G, Iii