The White Pine news. [volume] (Ely, Nev.) 1906-1910, 1908-07-31

times known as secondary boycott
against his customers or those witt
whom he deals in business. All thost
who sympathize with them may unite
TO aid them in their struggle. bui
they may moi through the instru
mentality of a threatened or aetna
boycott compel third persons against
their will and having no interest II
their controversy to come to their as
sistance. These principles have foi
a great many years been settled b,
the courts of this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries &c
business, like those described above
can only be adequately remedied by
an Injunction to prevent them. The
jurisdiction of a court of equity te
Ell join in such cases arises from the
character of the injury and the meth
cd 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 II
is the result of constantly recur-
ring series of acts. each of which
in itself might not constitute sub
stantial 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
foundation of courts of equity been
prevented by Injunction.
1t has been claimed that injunc-
tons do not issue to protect anything
but property rights. and that business
l. 81 oh hui aIiah a
proposition 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 pecuniary nature. and we may
well submit to the eonsiderate judg-
ment of'all laymen whether the right
of man in his business is not as
distinctly a right of pecuniary ma
ture as the right to his horse or his
house or the stock of goods on his
shelf: and the instances in which in
functions to protect business have
been upheld by all courts are SO
many that 1t is futile further to dis
cuss the proposition.
It is difficult to tell the meaning
of the Democratic platform upon this
subject. II says:
Questions of judicial practice
have arisen especially in connection
with industrial disputes. We deem
that the parties to all judicial pro-
ceedings should he treated with rigid
and that injunctions
should not be issued in any cases In
which iniunctions would not issue II
no industrial dispute were involved
This declaration is disingennous.
1t seems to have been loosely drawn
with especial purpose of rendering
1t susceptible TO one Interpretation by
one set of men and to diametrical-
ly opposite Interpretation by another.
1t does not aver that injunctions
should not issue in 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 injnnc-
tion in reference thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn
in its present vague and ambiguous
shape in order to persuade some peo-
pie that it is a declaration against the
vi any
trial dispute. while at the same time
it may be possible to explain to the
average plain citizen who objects to
class distinction that no such inten-
ton exists at all. Our position is
clear and unequivocal We are anx-
ious to prevent even an appearance
of any injustice TO labor in the is
suance of injunctions. not In spirit
of favoritism tokone set of our fell
low citizens, but for justice to all of
our fellow citizens. The reason for
exercising or refusing to exercise the
power of injunction must be found in
the character of the unlawful injury
and not in the character or class of
the persons who inflict this injury.
The man who has a business which
is being unlawfully injured is enti-
tied to the remedies which the law
has always given him. no matter who
has inflicted the injuries Otherwise
we shall have class legislation I'M
just in principle and likely TO sap
the foundation of free government