The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1909-01-07
Is a Weapon i'm the Hands of
the Trusts and Corpor-
atlons to Prevent Workers
from Securing Relief.

Aside from all the legal fiction
that has been invented to Justify
the use of the writ of injunction in
labor disputes, its defenders al
ways recur to the argument that
the issuance of this writ has the
effect of preventing violence on the
part of strikers. They say that
the efforts Of society should be
directed more toward the prevent
ion of crime than to punish it's
commission.
This argument might have some
weight If the DEGREES of the courts
possessed some magic power by
which they would execute them
selves; but the fact is, that were it
not for the executive branch of the
Government, with it's police and
soldiery. standing ready to carry
out the courts orders, the DEGREES
of the latter would not be worth
the paper they are written on. We
do not mean to say that the people
generally are not law.abiding, but
it is ridiculous to suppose that the
laws, in and of themselves, have
any deterrent effect upon those
criminally inclined.
In the final instance it is the
duty of the police power to pre-
serve the peace, for the perform
ance of which duty the law of the
land is sufficient authority, and the
pollce are in no way better able to
perform this duty because armed
with Observation-Disclosures of an.
order from the court. The police
have been and are just as capable
of preventing violence and dis
turbancc of the peace without this
writ.
The labor movcmet on does not
seek immunity to commit acts of
violence, nor does it seek to
curtail the power of the police to
preserve the public peace and
order. Far from it. Our object
ion to thc.sinjunction in labor dis
putes rests upon the fact that it is
being used to rob, the workers of
their individual, constitutional
rights as citizens, by the use of
which right they have formed
their organization and through
them improved their conditions of
life. and without which rights
thes organizations are doomed to
destruction, and their efforts to
improve conditions be defeated.
We hold that a workingman can
not loose his rights as a citizen by
reason of the fact that he is out of
employment, either of his own
choice or because he has been dis
charged by his employers (i e., is
on strike or locked out). To hold
otherwise would be moving back
ward to the time when the worker
who was found unemployed was
punished at the whipping post
and branded on the forehead. .
Surely we can not be accused of
asking special privileges in de-
demanding that any workingman
who by force of circumstances is
on strike or locked out, and who
is charged with violating the law,
be granted every right, including
trial by jury, designed to protect
the interests of any other person
charged -vith breaking the law.
We have learned from bitter ex-
perience that the injunction in
labor disputes is a weapon in the
hands of the employers against the
workers, to prevent the latter from
improving their conditions by
means that would be considered
legal if employed by any other
class of citizens, weapon that can
not be appealed to by the workers
and we hold that this writ was not
designed for nor should it be used
to accomplish such an object.
We insist that, in common with
all other citizens, we have the
right to use all lawful means in
our struggle for fair share of the
product Of our labor and in the
advancement of humanity.