Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1912-05-28
BY JEROME JONES.

WASHINGTON, ID. c.. May 25.-The
Clayton bill, the history of which is
now well known to the readers Of the
Journal, passed the house by an over
whelming majority. The vote leaves
no doubt as to the attitude of the
democrats on the question of injunc-
ton. This piece of legislation does not
give the workingmen all they have 1p-
piled for, as does the Bacon-Bartlett
measure. The executive council of the
American Federation of Labor will in
sist that the house carry out all OF
its promises to the working people Of
the country. They will urge the adop-
ton of the Bacon-Bartlett measure, and
will not relax in their efforts. Senator
Bacon and Judge Bartlett will hold a
conference tomorrow with reference To
their bill and will agree upon the line
of action that is to be pursued. 1t is
possible that Senator Bacon will en-
deavor to have the measure accepted
by the senate as an amendment to the
Clayton bill.
The real difference between the
Bartlett bill, and the Clayton bill is
this:
Injunctions known as interlocutory
or permanent injunctions have been in
discriminatory granted to employers of
labor in labor disputes, simply because of
the fact that the. employe sought to bet
ter his condition by refusing to work
under prevailing circumstances. II he
sought to persuade byp peaceable
means others to join with him in -his
attempt to better his condition, the
organization was Immediately served
with an injunction, restraining the
employee from exercising personal
rights. The Clayton Bill further pro-
vides that no injunction shall be
granted without previous notice, and
an opportunity being given to those
about to be enjoined to be heard in
their own benefit, and it must appear
to the satisfaction of the court or
judge that irreparable injury will en-
sue to the applicant for an injunction.
and that sufficient bond shall be given
in such sum as the court or judge pay
deem proper. The Clayton bill further
defines the extent to which courts OF
law, and not courts of equity may go
in behalf of the laboring masses of the
country.
But the Bartlett bill goes still fur
Their, and is not in the least conflict
with the provisions of the Clayton
bill; in that, the Bartlett bill makes
the Sherman antitrust law imperative
and specifically states that it shall
not be unlawful for persons employed,
or seeking employment, to enter into
any arrangement, agreement or comb l.
nation with a view to lessening the
hours of labor, increasing the price of
labor or lettering the condition of
those employed; nor shall any arrange
ments, agreements or combinations be
unlawful among persons engaged in
horticulture or agriculture when made
with a view of enhancing the price of
agricultural or horticultural products.
In other words, where simply the per-
sonal rights of the parties are involv-
ed and there is no adequate remedy
at law, the Bartlett bill defines to
what extent equity jurisdiction may be
ex ercised; and where no irreparable in
jury is to be committed upon the prop
erty or property rights of either, no
Injunction shall be granted, but the
parties shall be left to their remedy
at law.
With the provisions of the Bartlett
bill added to the Clayton bill, the pro-
cedure would become a perfect one,
either in equity or law, for the aggriev-
ed party, whether he be employer or