Ottumwa tri-weekly courier., 1908-07-30
roads and has established an eight


hour law for government employees
and on government construction. The
fssence affected by the former is the
a Solition of fellow servant rule, and
Z the introduction of the cooperative
negligence theory by which an en-
ployee injured in the services of his
Employer does not lose all his right .o
4 recover because of slight negligence
on his part. Then there is the act
providing for compensation for injury
to government employees, together
with the various statutes requiring
4 safety appliance upon Interstate COM
merce railroads for the protection OF
their employees and the limiting OF
4 their employment These are all in
distances of the efforts of the Republic
II can party on behalf Of the wage earn
er. Doubtless a more conservative
measure for compensation for govern
ment employees will be adopted in the
future; the principle in such cases has
I been recognized, and is necessarily
somewhat slow. In course of time leg
islation will be more fully embodied
in definite statutes.
Interest Of Employees And Employee
The interest of the employer and
the employe never differ except when
4 1t comes to a division of the joint pro-
fit of labor and capital into dividends
and wages. This must be constant
source of periodical discussion between
the employer and the employe as in
deed are the other terms Of the en-
ployment.
I Advantage OF Unions
= To give to employees their proper
position in such controversy, to en-
able them to maintain themselves
y against employers having great capital,
/ they may we'll unite, because in union
\ there is strength and without it each
4 Individual laborer and employe would
be helpless. The promotion of indus
trial peace, though the instrumentality
of the trade agreement, is often one OF
the results of such union when intel
ligently conducted.
As to Other Labor
h There Is large body of laborers,
however, skilled and unskilled, who
J, 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 to strike in
body. They have a right to use
such persuasion as they may. provid-
ed 1t does not reach the point of
Nduress to lead their reluctant cola
borers to join them in their union
against their employer and they have
a right, If they choose, to accumu-
late funds to support those engaged
in strike, to delegate to officers the
d power to direct the action of the I'M
Mon, 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
I What they have not the right to
lNdo is to injure their employers pro-
perty, to injure their employers bus
ness by use of threats or methods
n S9of physical 6uress against those who
would work for him or deal with
him or by carrying on what Is some
times 4knewn as a secondary boycott
against his customers Of those with
whom he deals in business. Ali those
who eynpathize with them may unite
to aid them in their struggle, but
they may not, through the instru-
mentality 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
g great many years been settled by
the courts Of this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
business. like these described above,
can only be adequately remedied by
an Injunction to prevent them. The
jurisdiction Of a court Of equity to
,enjoin in such cases arises from the
character of the injury and the meth
Jed Of tnftcting it and the fact that suit
for damages offers no adequate rem
edy.
The injury is not done by one single
. act, which might be adequately COM
pensated for in damages by a suit
at law, but 1t Is the result Of con-
stantly recurring series Of acts, each
OF which in itself might not consti-
tute a substantial injury 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 injunc-
y ton.
Y 1t has been claimed that injunc-
}tions do not issue to protect anything
but property rights, and that business
Is not a property right but such
proposition is wholly inconsistent
with all the decisions Of the courts.
The supreme court of the United
States says that the injunction is
remedy to protect property or rights
of pecuniary nature and we may well
submit to the considerate Judgment
of all laymen whether the right of
a man in his business is not as dis
tinctly a right Of pecuniary nature
as the right to his horse or his house
or the stock Of goods on his shelf,
and the instances in which injunc-
tions to protect business have been
upheld by all courts, are SO many
that 1t is futile further to discuss the
proposition.
ItSis difficult to tell the meaning of
the Democratic platform upon this
subject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen in connection with industrial
disputes. We deem that the parties to