The News-Herald. [volume] (Hillsboro, Highland Co., Ohio) 1886-1973, 1908-07-30

with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers llabil-
ity act for interstate railroads, and has
established an eight hour law for gov
ernmept 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 compare
tive negligence theory by which an en-
ployee injured In the service of his
employer does not lose his right 10 re-
cover because of slight negligence on
his part. Then there is the net 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
ernment employees will be adopted in
the future.
|
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 II
each individual laborer and employee
would be helpless. The promotion Of
Industrial peace through the lnstru-
mentality of the trade agreement is
often one of the results of such union
when intelligently conducted.
There Is n 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.
In order to induce their employer
into compliance with their request
for changed terms of employment,
workmen have the right TO strike in
body. They have right to use such
persuasion as they may, provided 1t
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 a right, II they
choose. TO accumulate funds to support
those engaged in a strike, to delegate
to officers the power. to direct the ac-
tlon of the Union, and to withdraw
themselves and their associates from
dealings with, or giving custom to
those with whom they are In contro-
versy.
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 car
rying on what is sometimes known as
a secondary boycott against his GUS
toners or those with whom he deals.
1t has been claimed that injunctions
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business Is
not property right; but such propo-
sition is wholly Inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts. The Su-
preme Court of the United States says
that tbo Injunction is a remedy to pro
tect property or rights of a pecuniary
nature, and we may well submit TO the
considerate judgment of all laymen
whether the right of a man In his busi-
ness 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 protect business
have been upheld by all courts are SO
many that II is futile further TO discuss
the proposition.
1t is difficult to tell the meaning Of
the Democratic platform upon this sub
ject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially In connection with In
dustrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial
fly, and that injunctions should not be
issued In any cases in which injunc-
lions would not issue II no Industrial
dispute were involved
This declaration is disingenuous. II
seems to have been loosely drawn with
| Iue eppeCldi PURPOSE VI renuerluB IL
susceptible to one Interpretation by one
set Of men and to a Numerically oppo,
site Interpretation by another. 1t does
not aver that injunctions should not
issue In Industrial disputes, but only
that they should not issue merely be-
cause they are industrial disputes, and
yet those responsible for the declara.
ton 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 20 be drawn In
Its present vague and ambiguous shape
In order 70 persuade some people that II
In a declaration against the issuing OF
inJunctions In any industrial dispute,
while at the same time II may be pos
sfble TO explain to the average plain
citizen who objects 10 class distinctions
that no such intention exists at all
Our position is clear and unequivocal