Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-09-09

IL
Judge George NJ. Bourquin in federal
court on petition of the Great Northern
railway against interference with its
operations by certain striking unions
was extended to include union men at
Wolf Point and similar extension de-
MED in the case of Whitefish, in a de-
cision handed down by Judge Bourquin
Friday. The decision granting the orig
inal temporary injunction was handed
down late in August.
At the first hearing at Helena, Au-
gust q. witnesses for the union men
of the two towns were not heard, ap-
pearing at a later hearing In Butte.
In extending the temporary injunc-
ton to include Wolf Point, the decision
points out that the union men of that
place have been too insistent pom en-
ployes attending meetings at the union
halls, where 1t is represented that talks
and arguments have been made that
bordered on intimidation and had that
effect.
Threw Bathers Circulars
Throwing circulars at n%on-union
workers bathing in the lake and even
having them arrested for going in the
water without a bathing suit, does not
provide grounds for an injunction,
Judge Bourquin says in his review of
the situation at Whitefish.
Perhaps more interesting to union
men and railway operators alike than
the review of the two specific cases is
the discourse on the duties of courts
in injunction proceedings in labor diff
culties. Attorneys and others interest
ed commented on the %terseness and
clearness with which Judge Bourquin
commented or the attitude of courts
in such cases.
The decision is to be appended to
the previous decision.
The new decision reads:
"At the hearing on Aug. 81, 1922,
July %, 1922, the defendants of Wolf
Point and Whitefish resist extension
of the temporary injunction to specific
ally include them.
Talks Were Abusive
of Wolf Point reasonably requires such
extension. At least, they have been
too insistent that employees attend at
the unions hall, where the formation,
statements, argument and manner ex-
ceeded persuasion and savored of the
abusive and menacing, calculated to in
cite as was melted, fear, intimidation,
and departure from plaintiffs employ
ment and the town.
I'm respect to those of Whitefish. it
is otherwise. The only competent, ma
terial and preponderating evidence
tends to show that circulars for which
defendants may be responsible are of
questionable prOpriety; that perhaps
excessive picketing was INDUCED in
but abandoned before suit commenced;
that employees rave received anony-
nous threatening letters: that one en-
ploye was threatened by an unidenti-
fled man; and that several meI. un-
identified, but including one identical
in name with defendant Bugg and pre-
sumably he. orally abused a number of
employees swimming in a lake. thrust
some circulars upon them. and Bugg
complained of them for indecent ex-
posure and procured their arrest.
The circulars are too trivial as the
basis of injunction; the anonymous
letters without more cannot be i'm
puted to defendants; the charge of ex-
cessive picketing comes only at this
hearing, was preceded by a charge of
only threatened excessive picketing.
defendants appear only by counsel and
so cannot meet it, and. if a fact. was
abandoned before suit commenced and
not likely to be repeated; the threat
is in the same category as the anony-
nous letter: and the alleged abuse at
the lake is also first presented at this
hearing and by affidavit of one en-
ploye only. with defendants unable to
meet it. The whole is little in view of
near two months of strike and 100 men
involved, and is not to be accepted as
sufficient to move the discretion of
the court to grant an injunction.
Enioin With Caution
1T must be remembered the prin-
ciple applicable to injunctions are the
same in controversies between en-
ployers and employees as in any others.
Injunctions go only in cases of urgent
necessity made to appear by compe-
tent, material, creditable and prepon-
derating evidence, TO guard against in
juries not merely feared by the appli-
cant but reasonably to be apprehended
and likely to be irreparable. They are
extraordinary remedies granted with
great caution and in the exercise of
sound judicial discretion. That the APP
plicant is annoyed, threatened and in
jured will never Justify a court to
grant him IN injunction, unless these
trespasses are SO great that they
threaten him with irreparable injury
within the settled meaning of that
term in equity.
Experience warns against iniunc-