Vernon County censor. [volume] (Viroqua, Wis.) 1865-1955, 1908-08-05

9 ~ Au4ACE tAACAA NA4RAIE III
a compliance with their request tor
changed terms Of employment. work
men have the right TO strike in a body.
i They have a right TO use such persuan-
sion as they may. provided it does no.
reach the point of duress. TO lead their
reluctant co-laborers TO join them in
their union against their employer.
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 action
of the union. and to withdraw them
selves and their associates from deal
ings with, or giving custom to those
with whom they are in controversy"
What Labor Can Not Lawfully Do.
What they have not the rg ht to do
is to injure their employers property.
to iniure their employers business by
use of threats or methods of phvsiea.
+ 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 business All
those who sympathize 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 as
sistance. These principles have for a
great many years been settled by
the courts of this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
business, like those described above,
can only be adequately remeded 1y
an iniunct on to prevent them. The
jurisdiction of a court of equity TO en-
join in such cases arises from the
character of the injury and the
method of inficting it and the fac
that suit for damages offers no ade-
quate remedy. The unlawful injury
is not usually done by one single act.
which might be adequately compensa-
ted for in damages by a suit at law,
but it is the result of a constantly re-
curing series OF acts, each of when
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.
at has been claimed that injunc-
tons do not Issue to protect ANYTHING
but property rights, and that business
is not a property right; but such 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 a pc
cuniary nature, and we may we'll sub
NIT to the considerate judgement Of
all laymen whether .ne right of a man
in his business is moi as distinctly a
right of pecuniary nature as tbs
right to his horse or his house or the
; stock OF goods on his shelf; and the
instances in which injunctions to pro
tect business have been upheld by al
courts are so many that it is futile fur
Their to discuss the proposition.
Hearing Before Issue Of Injunction.
Il come now to the question of not
ice before issuing an INDUCTION. II l.
, fundamental rule of general jurispru
/, dence that no man shall be affected
by judicial proceeding without notice
and hearing. This rule, however, has
sometimes had an exception in the Is
suing of temporary restraining orders
commanding defendant in effect t
maintain the status quo until hear
ing. Such a process should issue only
in rare cases where the threatened
change of the status quo would in1ic
irreparable injury if time were taker
to give notice and a summary hearing
The unlawful injury usual in indus
trial disputes, such as / nae de
scribed. does not become formidable
except after sufficient time in whicl
3 to give the defendants notice and (
hearing. | do. not mean to say tina
there may not be cases even in indns
trial disputes where a restraining or
der might properly be issued withou
notice, but, generally, | think it i.
otherwise. In some State courts, anC
in fewer federal courts, the practice
Of issuing a temporary restraining or
der without notice merely to preserve
the status quo on the theory that i
won't hurt an body, has been too com
mon. Many of us recall that the prac
tice has been pursued in other thar
industrial disputes, as, for Instance, Il
corporal, and stock controversies Xix,
those o. err the Erie Railroad, in which
stay order without notice was r2
garded a step of great advantage
to the one who secured it, and cor
responding disadvantage to the on
against HON it was secured. Indeed
the chances of doing injustice on al
ex-parte application are much in
creased over those when a hearing i
granted. and there may be circun'
stances VI der which it may affect L
defendant to his detriment In tn
case Of a lawful strike. the sendin,
I of a formidable document reatrainiu,
: number Of defendant: LON doing
great many different things which tn
/ plaintiff AYERS they are threatening f
t. do, often so discourages men AWAY