Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1908-08-01


ployer does not lose all his right to re-
his part. Then there is the act provid
ing for compensation for injury to gov
eminent employees, together with the
various statutes requiring safety appli-
ances upon interstate commerce rail-
roads for the protection of their en-
ployees, and limiting the hours of
their employment. These are all in
stances of the desire of the Republican
party to do justice to the wage-earner.
Doubtless more comprehensive meas
ure for compensation of government
employees will be adopted in the fu-
ture; the principle in such cases has
been recognized, and in the necessarily
somewhat slow course of legislation
will be more fully embodied in definite
statutes.
Interest of Employer and Employee
Only Differ In Respect to Terms of
Employment.
The interests of the employer and
the employee never differ except when
it comes to a division of the joint profit
wages. This must be constant source
Of periodical discussion between the
employer and the employee, as indeed
are the other terms Of the employment.
Advantage of Union.
To give to employees their proper po-
sition in such controversy, to enable
them to maintain themselves against
employers having great capital, they
may well unite, because in union there
is strength and without 1t each indi
vidual laborer and employee would be
helpless. The promotion of Industrial
peace through the fundamentally Of
the trade agreement is often one of the
results of such union when intelligent
~ conducted.
Other Labor.
There is a 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 their employer into
a compliance with their request for
changed terms of employment, work
men have the right to strike in body.
They have right to use such persua-
sion as they may, provided it 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 right, If they choose, to
accumulate funds to- support those en-
gagged in a strike, to- delegate to officers
the power to direct the action 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 Can Not Lawfully Do.
What they have not the right to do
fs 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 |
q secondary boycott against bis Gus
toners or those with whom be deals |
in business. All those who sympathize |
with Them may unite to aid them in
their struggle, but they may not |
through the fundamentally Of a
threatened or actual boycott compel
third persons against their will and
having no interest in their controversy
to come to their assistance. These
principles have for great many years
been settled by the courts Of this eOun-
try.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
business, like those described above,
can only be adequately remedied by
an injunction to prevent them: The
Jurisdiction Of a court Of equity 60 en-
Join In such cases arises from the
character of the injury and the method
of inf1icting it and the fact that suit
for damages offers no adequate. RENE
dy. The unlawful injury is not usual
~ done by one single act, which might
be adequately compensated for In dam
ages by suit at law, but it is the re-
suit of 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 |
have since the foundations Of courts Of |
equity been prevented by injunction.
Ii has been claimed that inJunctions
do, not issue to protect anything but
property rights, and that business is
not a property right; but such prop
osi5fon is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts The Su-
preme Court Of the United States says
that the injunction is a remedy to pro-
'tect property or rights Of a pecuniary
nature, and we. may we'll submit to
the considerate Judgment Of all lay
men whether the right OF a man IN his
business is not as distinctly right OF
a pecuniary nature as the right to
his horse or his house or the stock OF