The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1916-09-15

would work injustice.
LAS time went on, these precedents
developed into custom and custom into
accepted law. Equity courts became
an important part of the judicial ma
chinery of England. The chancellor
became judge, who, without a jury,
heard cases for which there was no
adequate remedy at law and issued
DEGREES directing that certain course
be carried out.
These fundamental principles of
chancery, or equity, were developed:
Il. 1t was to be exercised for the
protection of property rights only.
"2. He who would seek its aid must
come with clean hands.
"3. There must be no adequate
remedy at law
"a. 1t must never be used to cur
tail personal rights.
"5 1t must not be used to punish
crime.
Equity courts have been invoked
in times of industrial disputes for the
purpose of securing from equity judges
restraining orders or injunctions re-
straining workers from collective ac-
ton assuring that unity of purpose
necessary to make strike effective;
from saying orally or publishing in
formation or doing things necessary
to induce employers to agree to better
terms and conditions of work, and
from profiting by aid and counsel in
carrying on industrial contests.
More than twenty years ago fed
eral courts began to issue such re-
straining orders and injunctions with
great frequency. Since equity courts
have jurisdiction only over contro-
versies involving property or property
rights the only seeming justification
for the issuance of these restraining
orders is the theory that employers
rights to do business includes a
property right in the labor of en-
ployes necessary to carry on the bust.
ness profitably.
They assume that property and
property rights are infinitely more i'm
portant than human beings or human
rights, and demand that these shall be
subordinated and uninterrupted pro-
duction or transportation.
ut has no bearing upon this argu'
ment to stigmatize wage earners
wrongfully as lawless and doors of
violence. When workers violate law
or commit crimes, there is adequate
remedy at law. No judge has right
to issue an injunction forbidding COM
mission of crime in advance-neither
has an equity court the right to try
criminal cases.
"Injunctions have been issued that
set aside rights guaranteed workers
and all citizens of the states and the
United States both by statutory and
constitutional law. Restraining orders
and temporary injunrtions were drawn
by lawyers in the pay of employers
presented to equity judges and often
signed without even being read, pend
ing, of course, a future hearing. But
between the time when they were is
sued and the future hearing they con
stituted an order of the court, viola
ton of which could be punished as
contempt of court and penalized by
fines or imprisonment
THE Technology used in these
edicts was such as to create preju
dices against the purposes and activ.
tiles of the workers by designating
them by epithets that carried with
them the insinuation of lawlessness
and malicious purposes.
The use of the writ of injunction
in industrial disputes was SO often in
contravention of law and legal justice
and subversive to the regular institu
tons of justice and government that
it was fittingly designated as govern
ment by injunction. 1t secured to EN-
ployers immunity and special privilege
and denied workers rights and oppor
tunities. All of this was accomplished
under guise of superficial legality in a
matter that was outwardly respectable
and sanctioned by institutions Of
justice.
Thus, like many another ben
Efficient institution, the writ of injunc
ton, which was intended to serve the
best interests of the people, became
an instrument of injunstice and
tyranny"