Bryan morning eagle. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1898-1909, 1908-08-02

shall plhce niu ON y WV - ~oes.s
with his employer. The Republican
party has passed an employers liabil-
itv 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
obolitlon of the fellow-servant rule.
and the introduction Of the compara-
five negligence theory by which an en-
pIoyee injured In the service or 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 or 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 more comprehen'
slye measure for compensation OF gov
eminent employees will be adopted In
the future.
To give to employees their proper
nosltlon In such controversy, to en-
able them TO maintain themselves
against employers having great cap
ital. they may well unite, because In
unlon there is strength and without IL
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 intclligently conducted.
There Is a large body of laborers,
however. skilled and unskllled, 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 watchfuness.
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 a 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
tbsse engaged In a strike, TO delegate
%S9kcers the power TO direct the &C
ton 81 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 70 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
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 n property right; but such propo-
stion Is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions OF the courts The Su-
preme Court OF the United States says
that the Injunction Is remedy 10 pro
tect property or rights OF a pecunlary
nature. and we may well submit TO the
considerable Judgment Of all laymen
whether the right Of man In his bust.
ness Is not rs distinctly a right Of
peCunlary nature as the right TO his
horse or his house or the stock Of goods
on his shelf, and the instances in
which iniunctIous 10 protect business
have bccn upheld 10y all courts are SO
many that II is futile further to discuss
the proposition
II Is difficult TO tell the meaning OF
the Democratic platform upon this sub
jcct 10 says
Questions OF judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with in.
lustral disputes. We deem that the
parties 10 all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial.
ty, and that nlunctlons should not be
issued I'm 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
he especial purpose Of rendering It
TO one Interpretation by one
yet of men and to a Numerically oppo
lite Interpretation by another. II does
lot aver that niunctions should not
ssue i'm Industrial disputes. but only
hat they should not issue merely boz
ause they are industrial disputes and
'et those responsible for the declara.
ion must have known that no one has
yer maintained that the fact that
dispute was industrial gave any basis
or issuing an injunction in reference
hereto
The declaration seems to be drawn in
Is present vague and ambiguous shap9 p,
order to persuade some people that II
a declaration against the issuing OF
FUNCTIONS in any industrial dispute,
'hlle at the same time It may be pos.
.bIs to explain to the average plain
Itizcn who objects to class distinctions
nat no such intention exists Mt all
ur position is clear and unequlyocal
We are anxious to prevent even an ap.
earance Of any injustice to labor in
he Issuance Of lnJunctions, not in
pirlt Of fayorIHsm 10 one set OF our