Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-09-09
RAIL INJUNCTION EXTENDED
TO INCLUDE Wolf POINT men
Temporary Restraining Order Extension to
Whitefish Is Denied by Judge Bourquin in
Federal Court Decision.

tions upon only a~ffidavits TO vital is.
sues and that may surprise defendants
The evidence that may well warrant
an emergency restraining order unit
hearing can be had upon the applica.
ton for an. injunction, may fall short
to justify the latter.
''As no one is to be subjected tc
Injunction merely because it will moi
injure him Though an unwarranted in.
junction is an indignity and always in.
~jurious), before he is enjoined, q suffi.
| Gent case must be legally made out
against him.
View Courts as Partisans
''In strikes, employers too often with
little cause are quick to seek injunc-
tions and their intimidating advantages,
and courts too often likewise grant
| them. The consequence is a DISPOSE
ton to view the courts as partisans
of the employers, and the judicial
writs of injunction as weapons against
employees, however lawfully they be
proceeding. And it is Of this Pandora's
box of obvious evils to society that
the Clayton act is designed to some
close the lid.
These controversies inevitably pre-
sent provocative situations, and may
involve fugitive encounters and dis
orders for which neither party may be
solely responsible. Often trivial, they
do not threaten irreparably injury and
so do not warrant i~nterposition by a
court of equity, but can be adequately
remedied by appeal to local authority.
1T may be as contended that near
election time local administrations are
disposed to neglect duty in the pre-
misses and to play politics. But for
that matter national administrations
are likewise. Nevertheless, injunctions
go only in the circumstances aforesaid,
and not merely to bridge gaps of ad-
ministrative dereliction.
Right TO Work incidental
'The right of employees, of men to
work (of which so much is heard dur
ing strikes and so little other times),
is but incidental and aids plaintiff not.
However much that right be infringed,
plaintiff cannot complain save to the
methods inflicting irreparable injury to
plaintiffs property rights. The right
itself is not absolute but qualified
the right to sell labor if a buyer be
found, to solicit a job and often hope
lessly and unavailingly. and to work
if as and as long as the buyer or job
giyer consents and no longer.
Society has not yet progressed to
insure work or to recognize a sub
s%tantial interest in a job had. though
perhaps the spirit of the times is
not their necessity. even as the Clay
ton act, tends in the direction of the
latter at least.
In respect to the contention that
the antitrust act in connection with
section IS of Clayton act warrants in
Juctlon against even peaceful persu-
aston of employees to cease work If
the result otherwise is interruption of
PLAINTIFFS interstate transportation. it
is unmaintainable. The interruption.
an unintended Consequence Of lawful
exercise of a right sanctioned BY the
law before and since the acts afore-
said. sanctioned by section 20 of the
latter act aforesaid. is damnum absauc
lnJurla and not winthin said acts so
so far As injunctive relief is con-
cerned.
Passes Guard Question
In the matter of the defendants
request that the order enjoin plaintiff
from maintaining more guards than
pickets where the latter are stationed
If and when it is made to appear that
guards in any number are infringing
upon defendants rights, a corrective
can be applied.
me order in respect TO the number
OF defendants agents or pickets car
be amended when necessity is made
to APPEAR as suggested in the earlier
and foregoing decision. Neither that
decision nor this assumes to limit the
number composing any defendants
groups for persuasion only. What is
reasonable and only persuasive is a
safe guide.
Order accordingly. effective on
bond in the sum of s.. 900 90.