Wheeling majority. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1907-192?, 1914-06-04

lent language, or preventing them, in
any manner aforesaid, from render
ling their service to the plaintiff, and
IN like manner from inducing or coerc-
Ing them to leave the employment of
1plaintlH and from in any manner SO
interfering with the plaintiff in carry
Ing on its business in it's usual and
ordinary way and from interfering by
threats, intimidation, violence, violent
or abusive language with any person
or persons who may be employed or
seek employment by plaintiff in the
operation of the plaintiffs mines or
works.
.. From either singy or in combi-
nation with others collecting in and
about the approaches to plaintiffs
mines and works for the purpose of
p1cketing or patrolling or guarding
the highways and approaches to the
property of plaintiff for the purpose of
1ntimidating, threatening OF coercing
any of plaintiffs employees from work
ing In Its said mines or works, or any
person seeking employment therein,
from entering into such employment,
and from interfering with said employ
es IN going to and from their daily
work in and about the minest and
works Of plaintiff.
10. And from eth r sineIy or COL
ectlveIy going to the homes and
boarding homes of plaintiffs employees
or any OF them, for the purpose of in
tlm1dating or coercing any or all of
them to leave plaintiffs employment.
| President Gompers dissects Judge
Dayton's order in the following man
ner:
The injunction. then, enjoins the
miners from "conspiring' to strike,
from even using persuasion to lin
duce" employees to strike. from tres
Ipassing," that is, going outside their
homes for the purpose Of "enticing"
Lemployes to leave the companys SER
Twice. Can these workers be free if
Ithey do not have the right to stop
.lwork? II they have that right how
can they be restrained from ''conspir-
ting" to exercise It?
Have free workers a right to organ
Itze to promote their own welfare and
happiness? How can they be restrain
Jed from conspiring to achieve that
lpurpose even without the permission
of the company? In organization
workers exercise personal rights. Note
1.-THE skllful twist of this injunction
specialist in the phrase "unionizing
plaintiffs mine," which is intended to
give the impression that property
rights were endangered.
| Note In section 8 another tough of
the exDert-"elsewher limitless,
IbOundless elsewhere" And again,
in any manner whatsoever" Can
and Judge be justified in forbidding
the United Mine Workers from OBJ
lstructing the business of the West Vir-
ginialP Pittsburgh Coal Company in
any manner whatsoever" Think of
the manifold activities perfectly le-
ga normal activities-covered by
Company Gin any manner whatsoev-
ler?"
How can justice exist when judge
is permitted to issue injunctions which
amount to despotic legislation? If
even one judge may under existing
conditions deprive even one worker
OF rights necessary to his freedom,
then those existing conditions must
be changed without delay. One hui
man being Is more valuable than a
mine. But Judge Dayton ruthlessly
trampled upon the rights of many
workers, and by precedent all work
ers.
i In section s, the miners are forbid
den to~use railroads, private or public
/ highways, passing through or ada
cent to the plaintiffs property" for
the purpose of interviewing or talk
ing to" any person, or lin any man
ner whatsoever" explain working con-
ditions in the mine to enlist support
for the cause of the strikers! Think
Of it~-freedom of seepch denied by an
Injunction in order to help the mine
operators to keep their employers or
prospective employees" ignorant of
their opposition to organized labor,
higher wages, and better conditions
Of work. IN
| The prohibitions of section are
not for the purpose of protecting mine
| property but are for the very abvious
purpose of helping the operators to
fasten the grip upon their morgan
lized, Impoverished employees. What
property right has the West Virginia
Pittsburgh Coal Company in the labor
Ipower il its employees? It has no
lproperty or property rithg in the labor
of the miners. Then by what author
iity can any judge command workers
mot to induce fellow-workers to refuse
or fail to perform personal service
labor. II any of those conducting the
lstrike should become too vehement in
the manner Of their indueement there
Il Is recourse at last for disturbance of
the peace, etc. Assuming that the pur
Ipose Of a judge in issuing an injunct-
ion may be good, yet by usurping au-
lth0rity, by establishing precedent
THAT constitutes q menace to free in
Istitutions, the issuance Of that injunct-
lion 10 q greater and more far,reaching
Lnlnnnn f6nn anw al - 4laaonnnE hz 8.