The Birmingham age-herald., 1908-07-29
TAFT PLEDGES ALLEGIANCE
 TO ROOSEVELT POLICIES
(CoNTINuED FROM PAGE 2o

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 20
 they may well unite. because in union
 there is strength and without it each
 individual laborer and employe wou q
 be helpless The promotion of indus.
 trial peace through the instrumentality
 of the trade agreement is often one Of
 the results of such union when intelli- gently conducted.
 Other Labor.
 There is a large body of laborers, however, skilled and unskilled, who arc
 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 their employer
 into a compliance with their request for changed terms of employmeAt workmen have the right to strike in body. They have a right to use such persuasion as they may, provided it
 does not reach the point of duress, to
 lead their reluctant co-laborers to joir
 them in their union against tn cir em.. ployer 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 ac- tion of the union, and to withdraw 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 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 carry
 ing on what is sometimes known as a secondary boycott against his custom
 CTS or those with wh om he deals In business. All those who sympathize
 with them may unite to aid them in
 their struggle, but they may mt
 through the instrumentality of
 threatened or actual boycott comp'l
 third persons against their will ard
 having no interest in their controversl / to come to their assistance These prin- ciples have for a great many years been
 settled by the courts of this country. Threatened unlawful injuries to busi- 1 ness, like these described above, can only be adequately remedied by an injunction to prevent them. The Jurisdiction of court of equity to enjoin in such cases
 arises from the character of the injury and the methods 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 compen- sated for in damages by suit at law, but 1t is the result of a constantly recurring series of acts, each of which In itself might not constitute a substantial 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
 I.k
 equity been prevented by injunction.
 It has been claimed that injunctions do not issue to protect anything but prop erty 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
 remedy to protect property or rights of ] pecuniary nature, and we may well sub
 init to the conslderate judgment of all
 laymen whether the 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 in functions to protect business have been upheld by all courts, are so many that 1t is futile further to discuss the proposi- | ton.
 It io difficult to tell the meaning of the 1 democratic platform upon this subject. | It says:
 Questions of judicial practice have
 arisen especially in connection with in- 1 dustrial disputes. We deem that the
 parties to all judicial proceedings should l be treated with rigid impartiality, and
 that injunctions should not be issued in l any cases in which injunctions would not 1 issue If no industrial dispute were in 1 volved."
 The declaration is disngenuous. It ..Al. l the purpose of rendering it susceptible to
 one interpretation by one set of men, and l to a diametrically opposite interpretation | by another. It does not aver that in l functions should not issue in industrial
 disputes, but only that they should not l issue because they are industrial disputes,
 and yet those responsible for the declara 1 tion must have known that no one ever
 maintained that the fact that dispute 1 was industrial gave any basis for issuing ] an injunction in reference thereto. The l declaration seems to be drawn in It's pres ent vague and ambiguous shape to per- 1 suade some people that 1t is a declaration against the issue of injunctions in any in- 1 dustrial dispute; while at the same time | it may be possible to explain to the av- 1 craze plain citizen who objects to class | distinction that no such intention exists. Our position is clear and unequivocal. We are anxious to prevent even an appear l ance of injustice to labor in issuing in- | functions, not in the spirit of favoritism | to any set of our fellow-citizens. but in
 the interest of justice to all. The req
 son for exercising or refusing to exercise | the power of injunction must be found in | the character of the unlawful injury and l not in the character or class or the per-
 sons who infiict the injury.
 The man who has a business which is
 being unlawfully injured is entitled to the remedies which the law has always given him, no matter who has inflicted | the injuries. Otherwise we shall have l class legislation unjust in principle and 1 likely to sap the foundations of free government.
 Notice and Hearing Before Issue of Injunction.
 l I come now to the question of notice
 before issuing an injunction It Is a | fundamental rule of general jurispru- dence that no man shall be affected by
 judicial proceeding without notice and I l-r