The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1910-04-07

mess OF an employer, the labor orpaniza-
tons must suffer civil damages as well
as be subject to the penal provisions of
the law. Under that Interpretation the
liatters of Danbury have been mulcted
III damages to the sum of 1929, 900 Un-
der it 10 workers in New Orleans have
been indicted for conspiracy Under it
| the men of labor who own and control
nothing but their power to work, "a power
which is part of their very being and
from which they can not be separated,
are classed in the same category as the
combinations and corporations which
own, control, and deal in the products of
labor.
Under the decision of the Supreme
Court, there is now no distinction recog-
nlzed In the law between flesh and blood
and soul (thc workers, in the disposition
or their labor power), on the one hand,
and on the other the corporations and
| combinations owning, cornering, and
gambling in cattle, iron, and coal, in all
the material products-the necessities of
| the people.
The injunction, beneficent in its origi-
nal intent to do equity, to obtain abso-
lutte justice and to protect property and
property rights, has been perverted in or
der to control and limit personal rights,
human relations, and these only when
they affect the working people when en-
gagged in Il controversy or dispute with
employers.
But in beginning the infliction of in
justice upon one portion of the people, IT
IS difficult to stop it's extension until it
reaches far beyond the limits and intend
cd. Denial of rights to some is the moe
ulation of virus that must attack the
whole bouy polite.
When the courts began to pervert the
benehcent writ of injunction, about de-
cade or two ago-that is, when the
courts assumed that the employer has
some form OF property right in so much
o. the labor power OF the workers as to
enable him to conduct his business profit
ably, and that the business man has some
form of property right in the prospect
i've patronage of the people, and when
the courts undertook to interfere with
the personal relations between the work
ers and cmployers-labor held and still
insists that this assumption of jurisdic-
tion and authority was an invasion of the
people S rights, and it then declared that
unless some law was passed regulating
and limiting the power of the courts in
issuing injunctions, or the higher courts
themselves should call n halt, the powers
of the courts would be extended far be-
yond the then accepted jurisdiction.
Few then believed that the time would
come when an injunction might be is
sued such as Justice Gould s against the
American Federation of Labor and it's
officers, its affiliated organizations,
friends and sympathizers, and it's coun-
sci, restraining them from either in print
or by writing, or by word of mouth, dis
cussing or directly or indirectly referring
to the existence of Il dispute between
workmen and an employer. 1t was be-
lieved that at least free speech. and free
press could not be enjoined, but would
remain inviolate, and that in any event
it could never be prohibited by writ of
injunction. Fewer still believed that it
would bring forth Justice Wright to
sentence men to long terms of imprison-
ment because they dared discuss in print
and in speech the principles involved in
4 great public question And yet these
and other forms OF judicial tyranny and
abuse of power have come to pass.
When the injunction writ was first
perverted so as to apply to Labor. we
foresaw and publicly foretold that un-
less the courts were curbed in their con-
slant reaching for extended power in this
direction the time would come when they
would issue injunctions not only against
the men of Labor, but when they would
issue iniunctions rcstraing Congress
and even the President of the United
States from exercising the functions and
duties entrusted to them respectively by
the people, and this prediction has come
to pass. not in the exact form, but in the
undeniable fact.
Justice Wright recently issued writ
to n joint House and Senate committee
of Congress requiring the committeeman
to show cause why mandamus should
not be issued by him to compel them to
pursue a certain course. The committees