The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1921-07-30

In presenting the case Of the
striking printing trades to Judges
Cant, Dancer and Magney sitting
in the hearing Of the application
Of Is local employing printers for
an injunction against the unions,
A. G. Mcknight, attorney for the
unions knocked the props from
under the plaintiffs when he called
the courts attention to a recent
New York decision in which the
issues were involved were SINH.
lar to those obtaining in Duluth.
The decision quoted by Mr.. Nc
knight vacated an Injunction sought
by an employer, even when it was
shown that there was some "violence,"
and the pickets had used strong Ian
guage closely approaching threats"
The decision has a striking bearing
on all injunction cases. pending in
Minnesota and is we'll worth reading.
The case is that of the Walter A.
Wood Moving Machine company VS..
Toohey and is cited in 1876 New York
Supplement, pages 95-102, recently
printed. The decision was rendered
Jan. %. 1921 and reads as follows:
Language of Decision.
"Denuded Of all impairment mat
ter, therefore, and reduced to a sedi-
ment, the charge against the work.
| ingmen is this: They have gone on,
| strike and have resorted to pick
citing; that is, they have been trying
| to persuade others not to take their
places. This is the head and front
of their offending This is not
enough.
1T is urged that the injunction will
do no harm, because the defendants
are to be restrained only from do
ing unlawful acts and. perpetrating
crime. But the citizen cannot be re-
strained from doing an unlawful act
until there is evidence that he in
tends to do such an act. 1t casts OPP
probrium upon a. person to assume
that he will commit crime; and, in
any event. equity has no criminal
jurisdiction.
For the Penal Law.
IAN Injunction order is no me ma &C.
to criminals. F'elons cannot be de-
TERED from crime by injunction. The
penal law is. a standing Injunction
against crime. The penalties for
crime are ten-fold more severe than
the chastisement for contempt Of
court. If the defendants are COM
hitting crime, the quick, summary,
regular remedy is arrest and prose-
cution.
MANY publicists and some jurists
have taken the position that injunc-
tions ought never to issue"sin labor
disputes. The congress of. the United
States has nearly said that. L should
not want to go quite to that length.
LaWlessness and violence ought. per-
haps, in an extreme case, to be re-
strained by injunction: but the courts
should not care1essly cast the weight
of their mandates into the strife be-
tween employers and employees.
Defines Its Purpose,
I'm an evenly balanced, bitter.
long drawn-out labor struggle, an
edict of the court. leveled at the
I oIAA SlldheS luo luOTd1c OF lQc
workingmen. This is not the pur-
pose Of an Injunction. although it is
frequently, and perhaps generally, the
| purpose Of the employer, who
| seeks it.
The function Of an injunction or
der in labor dispute is to restrain
laWlessness, when there is lawless-
ness, and when this is likely to cause
irreparable damage. When there is
no 1awlessness and no proper grounds
to apprehend it. there should be no
| injunction. The courts do not take
sides in this ceasless struggle between
capital and labor. They stand indif-
ferent. They intervene only when the
law is trampled upon. They inter-
pose the arm of authority only to
restrain those who invade the rights
of others.
1.-The moral effect Of an Injunction
order In such cases is tremendous.
AT once it gives the impression in
the community that the strikers have
violated the law. The court seems to
have taken a hand in the struggle.