Belding banner. (Belding, Mich.) 1889-1918, 1916-06-28
LEGALIzING VIOLENCE

The petitions now being circulated
bv organized labor asking that the
constitution of the state be amended
so as to take from the courts the
power to issue injunctions in labor
disputes is one of the most arbitrary
and revolutionary moves ever made
in a democratic country in time of
peace. The suspension~o the writ OF
habeas corpus would be fraught with
no more danger to the rights Of citi-
zens that the depriving Of certain
classes of our people of the right TO
seek this remedy to prevent the de-
struction of their property and the
ruin of their business. 1t is the most
radical kind of class legislation be-
cause it seeks to deliver up one class
of our citizens, bound and helpless, to
the tender mercies of another class.
We might look upon this move with
more or less complacency If the evil
was to affect only the class at which
it is aimed, but the evil effects from
such legislation will touch every citi-
zen of the state. We cannot isolate
such vicious principle. Sooner or
later the whole people, who pay all
the bills in the end, will taste the bit
ter fruits, and it is better that they
should realize this before putting
their hands to a petition which is
bound to handicap their commercial
activities, work disaster to their in
dustries and open the door to whole
flood of vicious legislation. If the
fundamental law of the state is to be
changed so as to deprive the manu-
facturer of the power to protect his
property by Injunction it will pave the
Iscnx-Iat. a,,I do
struction against which the local au-
thorities will be powerless.
Organized labor may deny that it
intends either disorder or destruction,
but the very fact that it is asking that
the legal restraints upon such action
be removed proves the case against it.
If a business mans property is
threatened with destruction at the
hands of disgruntled employees or
anyone else is he not entitled TO the
entire force of the commonwealth to
protect it? If organized labor does
not intend to coerce the employer by
threatening the destruction Of his
property why is it making such siren
uous efforts to deprive him of the
legal protection which he has had
since the foundation of the republic?
The motive behind all this activity
is too transparent to deceive any citi-
zen who will acquaint himself with the
facts.
1t is time that the people realized
that they have to pay, in the final
accounting, for all labor disputes,
strikes, lockouts and boycotts. This
fact is unacceptable. Have the people
of any city in this state so many fac
tories that they can afford to open the
doors to fire and destruction? Are
we not all vitality interested in the
payrolls of our factories? Are we not
all affected adversely when those pay
rolls dwindle or disappear Can we
afford to place our factories at the
mercy of those who respect not the
personal or property rights of an
other? The vast majority of our
workingmen are orderly and law
abiding citizens, but there are, un-
fortunately. too many to whom the de-
struction of property appeals as the
best arguments which can be used in
the settlement of labor disputes. Be
fore our citizens give encouragement
to this movement they should con-
slider the patent fact that organized
labor would not ask for this power if
it did not intend to use it.