The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1908-07-30


with his employer The Repu6Ii, -
party has passed an employers La T.
ity act for interstate railroads. and has
established an eight hour law for g.
eminent employees and on gOvernnlc--t
construction. The essence of the re-
form effected 10y 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 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 Of their
employees, and limiting the hours of
their employment. These are all in
stances of the desire of the Repub-
lean party to do justice to the wage
Garner Doubtless a more comprehen-
| sive measure for compensation Of gov
eminent employees will be adopted in
the future.
To give to employees their proper
position in such "a 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 it
each individual laborcr 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 inteIIigently conducted.
There is large body Of lahorers.
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 watchfuncss.
In order to induce their employer
into a compliance with their request
| for changed terms of employment
| wOrkmen have the right to strike in a
| body. They have a right to use such
| persuasion rs they may, provided it
| does not reach the point of dureSs, to
| lead their reluctant cO-labOrcrS to Join
| them in their union against their EN-
| 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-
| ton 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 in;ure 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 hut
property rights, and that business is
| not a property right; but such propO-
| siti0n is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts. The SUI
| preme Court of the United States says
| that the injunction is a remedy to pro
tect property or rights of a pccuniary
nature, and we may well submit to the
| cOnsiderate Judgment of all laymen
! whether the right of a man IN his bust
ness is not as distinctly a right of a
! pecuniary nature as the right to his
1, -, / l.,
on his shelf; and the instances in
which injunctiOns' to protect business
have teen upheld by all courts are so
many that it 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,
! ity, and that injunctions should not be
| issued in any cases in which injunc-
tons would not issue If no industrial
dispute We're involved"
This declaration is disingenuOus. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering it
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 to be drawn in
its present vague and ambiguous shape
in order to persuade some people that it
is declaration against the issuing of
injunctions in any industrial dispute
while at the same time it may be pos
sible to explain to the average plain
citizen who objects to class distinctions
that no such intention exists at all.
Our position is clear and unequivocal
We are anxious to prevent even an ap-
pearance of any injustice to labor in
the issuance of injunctions, not in a
I Et,at % 20. f-.,, A..