The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-07-28

IShN1 h TdD 18th Thn MatrkM
Pay to RA an DwmH Hand dRgnhEm

:
mentality of the trade agreement Ii
often one of the results of such union
when intelligently 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 compliance with their request
for changed terms of employment,
workmen have the right 10 strike in a
body. They have n right to use such
persuasion as they may. provided IL
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, IL they
choose, TO accumulate funds to sup
port those engaged in a strike, to dele
gate to officers the power to direct
the action of the union. and TO with
draw themselves and their associates
from dealings with, or giving custom
to those with whom they are In con-
troversy.
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 phy-
steal duress against those who would
work for him. or deal with him, or by
carrying on what is sometimes known
| as a secondary boycott against his
customers or those with whom he
| deals in business. All those who sym.
pathize with them may unite to aid
them in their struggle, but they may
not through the instrumentality of a
/ threatened or actual boycott compel
| third persons against their will and
having no interest in their contro-
Versy to come to their assistance.
These principles have for a great
many years been settled by the courts
| OF this country.
threatened unlawful injuries to bus
mess, like those described above. can
| only be adequately remedied by an
injunction to prevent them. The jur-
isdicuon OF court of equity to enjoin
In such cases arises from the charac-
ter of the injury and the methods OF
| inflicting it and the fact that suit for
damages offers no adequate remedy.
The unlawful injury is not usually
done by one single act, which might
be adequately compensated for in
damages by suit at law, but 1t 10
the result of a constantly recurring
| series OF acts. each of which in itself
might not constitute a substantial In
| jury or make suit at law worth
| while. and all of which would REQUIRE
multiplicity of suits at law. Injuries
OF this class have since the foundation
OF courts of equity been prevented by
injunction.
1t has been claimed that injunctions
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights. and that business 10
not a property right: but such a pro-
position is wholly inconsistent with
all the decisions of the courts. The
supreme court of the United States
says that the injunction is a remedy
to protect property or rights of a
pecuniary nature. and we may well
submit to the considerate judgement
OF all laymen whether the right of a
man in his business Is not as distinct.
iy right OF pecuniary nature as the
right to his horse or his house OF the
,, stock of goods on his shelf: and the
instances In which injunctions to pro-
tect business have been upheld by all
courts are so many that 1t is futile
further to discuss the proposition.
1t is difficult to tell the meaning of
the democratic platform upon this
subject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with
industrial disputes. We deem that the
parties TO all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impar.
TALLY, and that injunctions should
not be issued in any cases in which
inJunctions would not issue IL no In.
dustrial dispute were involved"
1nis declaration Is disingenuous. It
seems TO have been loosely drawn
with the especial purpose of rende ring
IL susceptible to one Interpretation by
one set OF men and to a Numerically
opposite Interpretation by another. IL
NSeS hoe aver LHdI 1nJuncrlOnS should
not issue in industrial disputes, but
only that they should not issue mere
ly because they are Industrial dis
putes, and yet those responsible for
the declaration must have known that
no one has ever maintained that the
fact that dispute was Industrial gave
any basis for issuing an injunction in
reference thereto.
The declaration seems TO be drawn
in its present vague and ambiguous
shape In order to persuade some peo-
pie that II is a declaration against the
Issuing Of injunctions in any indus
trial dispute. while at the same time
1t may be possible TO explain to the
average plain citizen who objects to
class distinctions that no such fnten-
ton exists at all. Our position is clear
and unequivocal We are anxious to
prevent even an appearance OF any
injustice to labor in the issuance of
injunctions, not In a spirit of favorit.
ism to one set of our fellow citizens.