The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1908-07-31
those with whom they are in contro-

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 injure their employers business BY
use Of threats or methods Of physi-
cal duress against those who would
work for him or deal with him or by
carrying on what Is sometimes known.
as q secondary boycott against his Gus
toners or those with whom he deals in
business. All those who sympathize
with them may unite to aid them In
their struggle, but they may not
through the instrumentality OF q
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 q great many
years been settled by the courts OF
this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries to
business like those described above
can only be adequately remedied by
an Injunction to prevent them. The
Jurisdiction Of q court Of equity to en-.
join in such cases arises from the
character Of the unjust method Of In
flicting It and the fact that a suit for
damages Offers no adequate remedy.
The injury is not done by one single
act which might be adequately com.
pensated for In damages by q suit at
law, but It Is the result Of q constantly
recurring series Of acts, each Of which.
in itself might not constitute o sub
stantial injury or make a suit at law
worth while, and all Of which would
require q 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 Is
not a property right. but such a propo-
sition is wholly Inconsistent with all
the decisions Of the courts. The SUI
preme court Of the Unuited 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 considerable Judgment Of all
laymen whether the right Of a man In
his business is not as distinctly a right
Of a pecuniary nature as the right to
his horse or his house or the stock Of
goods on his shelf and the instances In
which %injunctions to protect business
have been upheld by all courts are SO
many that it is futile further to dis
cuss the proposition.
It is difficult to tell the meaning Of
the democratic platform upon the sub
ject. It 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 imparti-
atty, and that injunctions should not
be issued in any cas- in which injunc-
lions would not issue If no industrial
dispute were involved"
The declaration is disingeous. It
seems to have been loosely drawn
with the purpose Of rendering 1t sus'
ceptible to n Interpretation by one
set Of men and to Numerically oppo
site Interpretation by another. It does
not e %injunctions should not is
sue in industrial disputes, but that
only that they should not issue be
cause they are industrial disputes and
yet those responsible for the declara,
ton must have known that no one
ever maintained that the fact that q
dispute was industrial gave any basis
for issuing an injunction in refer
ence thereto. The declaration seems
to be drawn in its present vague and
ambiguous shape to persuade somt
people that 1t is a declaration against
the issue of injunctions in any indus
trial dispute; while at the same time
1t may be possible to explain to the
average plain citizen who object II
class distinction that no such inten
ton exists. Our position is clear ant
unequivocal. We are anxious to pre-
vent even an appearance Of injustice
to labor in issuing injunctions, not ii
the spirit OF favoritism to any set o
our fellow citizens, but in the inter
est OF justice to all. The reason O
exercising or refusing to exercise thu
power of injunction must be found II
the character of the unlawful injur,
and not in the character or class o
persons who inflict the injury.
The man who has a business which
Is unlawfully injured is entitled to tn,
remedies which the law has give1
him, no matter who has inflicted tht
injuries. Otherwise we shall havt
class legislation unjust in principle
and likely to sap the foundations of
free government.
Notice and Hearing Before Issue o
l%nlunctions.
I come now to the question o
4 ~ sL -. E-A- &L -