The labor world., 1922-04-01
HOW INJUNCn0kS CAME
TO Be USED N STRIKES
Continued from page ~

~ ~ UOIU IN OjnIkLO
CONTINUED from page ~
to dispose Of his services, as the EN-
ployer has to dispose of his property.
What courts q equity have fre-
.quently done in issuing labor injunc-
tions IS to protect an employers bus
mess by assuming or asserting that
this is property. :.
II 1t is true that the right to DO
business and the conduct of business
is property. then the right to engage
or to continue in business is proper
ty' instead Of personal right. If
courts of equity assumed to resulate'
personal relations and personal
rights they would arrogate to them
selves all of the jurisdiction now
held by the law courts and succeed
IN abolishing trial by jury in the
great majority of cases now going
before the courts.
Inc Constitution confers euuitv
power upon the courts by stating
that they should have jurisdiction in
law and In equity just as the Consti-
tution makes it their duty to issue
writs Of habeas corpus and in sub
'stant1ally the same manner as It
provides for and guarantees trial by
jury.
AS has been already indicated. the
equity power was originally applied
IN America as it had existed in Eng
land at the tine when our Constitu-
ton was adopted and our, equity
were originally limited and defined
by English authority. It wars by de-.
vising and expanding the judicial
theory that business is property that
American. equity courts endeavored
to justify their injunctions in labor
cases.
II business IS property when
strike or boycott occurs, then it nec-
essarily must be property at all 9TH
er times and entitled to be protect
ed against irreparable injury caused
by competition from other manufac-
turers or business men. Business and
the income derived from business
would be established in the same
position as land and the income de.
rived from 1t. One immediate result
would be to make all competition in
trade unlawful because the compe-.
titfon Of one manufacturer or mer-
chant would injure or destroy the
business and the income Of another
manufacturer or merchant.
AS was said by Judge Noyes Of tho
United States circuit court of ap-
peals in the case of the National
Fire-proofing company vs. Mason
Builders association:
"A laborer, as well as q builder,
trader, or manufacturer. has the
right to conduct his affairs in any
lawful manner even though he may
thereby injure others - =. The re-
suit Is not a conspiracy. although
it may necessarily work injury to
other persons. The damage to such
persons may be serious, it may even
extend to their ruin-but If it is in
courts were originally limited and
innate pursuit Of it's own affairs. 1t
is damnum obseque injuria. -
Nevertheless. it cannot be denied
that the complainant has grounds
for complaining. It desires to engage
In . lawful and legitimate business
in . lawful and legitimate way and
is practically prevented from doing
80 by the acts Of the defendants.
Its right to do business in the man
ner it desires is interferred with and
the law affords it no remedy be-
cause such interference is only in
cidental to the, exercise BY the de-
*fendants Of their own right to con-
tract for their own benefit: The COM
plainant IL injured. but has no REM.
edy. The law could only make It
possible for the complainant to do
business in the way It chooses by
compelling the defendants to do bus-
mess in the way they. do not choose.
But when equal rights clash. the
law cannot interfere %. l.. e.
- In this case. the National Fire
proofing compsny had endeavored to
secure an Injunction against the
Mason Bpilders' association. It was
q controversy between two groups
Of business men. The United States
circuit court Of appeals refused to
issue an injunction and in doing 50
laid down the principles announced
fticted by : com btnation IN the, legit-
above, making It evident that the
right to engage in business did not
) ft>tIt 5.s lI b. 3 . i $50