Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-07-07
lCoptinued from Las. Week.

Fireproofing Company IS. Mason
Builders Association. the United
States Circuit Court Of Appeals de-
clined 10 issue an injunction restrain
ing the Mason Builders Association
from boycotting the National Fire
PROBING Company, and in its opinion
the court announced the legal prin-
eiple involved as follows;
"A laborer, rs well as builder,
trader. or manufacturer has the right
10 conduct his affairs in any lawful
manner, even though he may thereby
injure others. Some several labor
ers and builders may combine for mu-
tual advantage and so long as the mo-
tive is not malicious. the object not
unlawful and the means
neither deceitful or fraudulent, the
result is not conspiracy. although
it may necessarily work injury 10 9TH
er persons. The damage to such per-
sons may be serious, ii may even ex-
tend to their ruin, but il II is infiict-
ed by combination in the legitimate
pursuit Of its own affairs, il is dam
mum obseque injuria. The damage is
present, but the unlawful object is
absent. 49, Nevertheless 1t can
had ground for complaining. Ii de-
sires TO engage IN a lawful and legiu-
mate business IN a lawful and legiu-
mate way and is practically prevented
from doing so by the acts of the de-
PENDANTS. Its right TO do business in
the manner it desires is interfered
with, and the law affords IL no remedy
because such interference Is only incl
dental TO the exercise by the defend
ants of their own right to contract
for their own benefit. The complain
ant is injured, but has no remedy.
The law could only make it possible
for the complainant to do business in
the way it chooses by compelling the
defendants to do business in the way
they do not choose. But when equal
rights clash, the law cannot inter
fere."
The early injunctions issued in la
Dor cases did not tend to establish
class distinctions, but the courts find
ing that their occupation of new and
unauthorized ground had not met with
successful opposition in Congress or
state legislature, encroached further
by issuing mandatory writs and edicts
which in most positive terms denied
one group Of citizens the right af-
firmed as belonging to another.
The trade unionist's boycott is re-
strained and condemned; the business
mans boycott is upheld and approved,
what greater proof of class distinc-
ton.
| The conflict created by these con-
flicting un-Amercian and unconstitu-
tional judicial acts was eloquently
and forcefully described by United
! States Circuit Judge Caldwell in the
case of Hopkins VS.. 0xley Stave Com
pany.
In part he said:
English History is replete with ex-
amples showing that the King and his
dependent and servile judges would
have subverted the rights and liber-
ties of the English people, but for the
good sense Of the English juries. II
Is the verdict of juries and not the
opinion of judges, that the English
people are chiefly indebted for some
of their precious rights and liber-
ties.
"On the other hand when laborers
combine to maintain or raise theil
wages, or otherwise to better Their
conditions, or to protect themselves
from oppression or to attempt to
overcome competition with their la.
Dor or the products of their labor, In
order that they may continue to have
/ employment and live, their action
however open, peaceful and orderly is
branded as a conspiracy What Is
competition when done by capital is
a conspiracy when done by labor.
Referring to the restrictions i'm.
posed upon labor by equity courts, ne
added:
"They cannot help knowing that
organized capital is not so restricted
And, when treatment apparently SO
unfair, and discriminating is admins
tered through the fundamentally OF
a court, the resulting discomfort and
resentment of employees are inevita-
bly, intensified because the law itself
| seems to have gone wrong, and II
some unaccountable manner to have
taken sides against them.
"* 1t cannot be the law that
the men and women who do the work
f, of the world and who produce its
wealth, have no rights against the
wealth they create, and no rights to
prefer and to promote by lawful and
| peaceful means the sale of the pro
ducts of their labor, to secure foi
themselves continued employment.
"The irreparable damage suffered
in business by vanquished competi.
tor at the hands of his successful riva
constitutes no cause of action, either
at law or in equity. 1t is the result
of the law of competition, to which al
men are subject. They take theil
chances and must abide the result
whether it brings fortune or failure
Can class distinction be made more
patent? Is the laborer-a free agent
a free man, an equal citizen-the peer
| of any other citizen, Immediately
after labor injunction is issued, put
/ in a judicial caste more bound ane
/ immured than Hindu, out of whief
he can never emerge so long as thai
/ Injunction stands Is the employer
no better, no greater, no more thar
any other individual-the superior be
cause of labor controversy? Why
can he legally do that which his EN-
pIoyee may not? Why does he re
ceive legal protection in such con.
troversy that his employee does not
WHY?
True, courts do draw very refined
distinction between the employers
boycott and the employees boycott
by stating that the negative act, no