United labor bulletin., 1909-10-22
INJUNCTION REFUSED-A GREAT
VICTORY FOR ORGANIZED
LABOR.
CONTINUED from page ~

tious should be the courts, in their ma
ture deliberations. in given case, to eX-
ercise that power. Injunctions and re-
straining orders have, from time to time,
been issued in cases of strikes and in
cases of locl1outs, not because of the
strike, not because of the lockout, but be-
cause of consequences arising out of the
same.
Judges are human Judges may diff
fer-they have differed. Courts have ex'
ercised this power under that judicial
discretion in each case, viewing the case
from the facts as they have been pre-
sented to them. They have left no def
mite rule that is infiexible, that should
guide other courts at all times, when ap-
plications of this character are presented.
Hence it is for this court to decide, under
and within it's judicial discretion, whether
or not the injunction should be issued
in this cases as prayed for.
"It being SO extraordinary, it should
only issue under extraordinary condi-
tions. 1t ought not to be issued to aid
either one side or the other in this con-
troversy. That should not be its purpose.
IL Ou6Al hot " uc iSouSu loi 1he Pun PoSS
of strengthening one side as against the
other, making the one more powerful than
the other, or in aiding the one side
against the other in any manner or form.
That is not the purpose. 1t ought not to
issue when only peaceable means are
used and adopted to promote or bring
about lawful purpose.
THE burden of the testimony in this
case shows that those of the respondents
who have been touched by this evidence
were, primarily, engaged, in the efforts
made, in a lawful purpose, to build up
and maintain, in its integrity, a labor
union. 1t is said, admitting that the pur-
pose originally, for it cannot be denied
that in the exercise of the powers which
the officers of the respondent association
had in discharging their duties, in the eff
fort that was made, for the purpose
claimed, their conduct was such as to be
in violation of the law. The evidence all
shows that that conduct has all been
peaceful There is no evidence in this
case of any destruction, by violence, of
any of the property of these petitioners.
There is no evidence of a disturbance of
their business by violence or by intimi-
dation. Nothing extraordinary has oc-
Cured. Nothing has occurred but what
is common to labor strikes and lockouts.
Sometimes parties to the controversy will
become excited. Sometimes they may be
guilty of slight infractions of the law
which are not encouraged and will not
be, but unless those infractions, unless
those slight deviatons from proper rules
of conduct culminate and result in some
thing extraordinary, such as the destruc-
ton of property, wilful trespass to prop
erty. putting property in danger, a tres
pass to persons and threatening persons
with bodily violence or, in some violent
manner, or means or method put persons
in fear of personal injury, in fear of the
destruction of their property and their
business: unless these infractions cul-
inmate in something of that character,
this extraordinary power in the court
ought not to be determined in favor of
the issuance of an injunction.
81 know of no case (there may be
some) where courts, in the exercise of
that proper, judicial discretion, have
granted lnJunCllOHS, eACtDl III cdoeS
where some of these features appeared
by the evidence in the case. Not the
mere suggestion that the petitioners are
afraid; not the mere suggestion of peti-
TONERS, or other evidence in the case,
that their business will be injured; not
the testimony of the petitioners in the
case that their business is being embar-
rassed by reason of this lockout or strike
or controversy between employers and
employes-it is not those things that JUS
tify a court in granting restraining or
der or an injunction, because they must
be well founded; not their judgment in
TIE. matter, because it is not for them to
decide the case.
"The question always is What has oc
CURED? Has anything extraordinary oc
CURED? Has the law been violated tc
the extent that it has resulted in any
immediate apparent injury to the persons
or property of the petitioners?
Nothing of that kind appears in this
case. 1t appears that the petitioners are
conducting their business in the usua
manner and do not know of single in
stance wherein they are not supplied witt
all the employees they desire; | cannot
recall any testimony that shows to the
contrary. There is no testimony that they
have lost any property. The complaint
is with reference to the embarrassment
to them under the conditions presented
through this controversy. That cannot
be avoided. That fact. that condition
alone does not give this court jurisdic
ton to grant an injunction, if it exercises
the same with judicial discretion.
at is said that the places of business
have been picketed and that some courts
somewhere have decided that that was