Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-05-26
WHENCE-WHY-WHAT FOR!
BY JOHN p. FREY

cision of the Court of Appeals ant
sustained Judge Farwell.
The action of the House of Lord.
created intense opposition, ano
aroused the public conscience OF
Great Britain. 1t gave new life anc
greatly increased vigor to the Brit
ish Labor Party, the result being thai
Parliament enacted what is known as
the Trades Dispute Bill, this law set.
ting. aside and vacating Judge Far.
wells injunction and the decision OF
the House of Lords and supporting
the decision of the Court of Appeals
Because of the all important ano
vital principles which are embodied
in this law, it is herewith reproduced
in full.
An act done i'm pursuance of an
agreement or combination by two OF
more persons shall, if done in con.
temptation or furtherance of trade
dispute, not be actionable unless the
act If done without any such agree
ment or combination would be ac-
tionable.
1T shall be lawful for one or more
persons, acting on their own behalf
or on behalf of a trade-union or of an
individual employer or firm in con-
temptation or furtherance of trade
dispute, to attend at or near a house
or place where person resides OF
works or carries on business or hap
pens to be, If they so attend merely
Tor the purpose of peacefully obtain.
ing or communicating information
or OF peacefully persuading any per-
son to work or abstain from working
An act done by a person In con-
temptation or furtherance of trade
dispute shall not be actionable on the
ground only that it induces some 9th
er person to break a contract of EN-
ployment or that it is an interference
with the trade, business, or employ
ment of some other person or with
the right of some other person to dis
pose OF his capital or his labor as he
wills.
An action against a trade-union,
whether of workmen or masters. or
against any members or officials
thereof on behalf of themselves and
all other members of the trade union
In respect OF any tortious act alleged
TO have been committed by or on be-
half OF the trade-union shall not be
entertained by any court.
Nothing in this section shall affect
the liability of the trustees of trade
union to be sued in the events provid.
ed for by the trade-union act 1871
section 9, except in respect of any
tortious act committed by or on be.
half of the union in contemplation OF
in furtherance of a trade dispute"
In the most unmistakable language
this law prevents any invasion of the
strikers rights by an injunction, SC
that the precedent established BIZ
Vice Chancellor Malin and the latel
injunction by Judge Farwell were
made impossible in the future.
The facts are then, that but two
inJunctions were issued against strik,
ing workmen in England, the first OF
which was repudiated and condemned
by the Lord Chancellor when passing
upon another case, upon the grounc
that court of equity had absolutel,
no jurisdiction in such case; and tn,
second was reversed by Parliament
itself.
American courts of equity therefor,
have no valid precedents to guild.
them, the facts being that the in
functions issued in America in con
nection with industrial disputes ar,
in direct disregard of the precedent!
OF the highest Chancery Court an,
the British Parliament.
In two other important aspects tn,
American practice is contrary to tn,
British presidents and authority.
British courts of equity for man,
centuries have operated for the relic
and protection of the weak agains
the powerful, and early in the court
history, it protected the poor fron
any unjust or too rigorous application
of the common law. As Lord Chan
cellor Elsemere said, in part:
1T is the refuge of the poor an
afflicted. 1t is the altar and sanctu
airy OF such as against the might o
rich men,"
In measure, our Constitution wa
intended to be that very embodiment
OF all equitable principles and relic
IN written and unmistakable form, bu
the decision in the Arizona case, a
we shall see in later article, it wa
necessary to strain and distort thi
very Constitution TO deny the peopl
the right through their congress an,
their legislatures in the several state
to do what the British people througl
thelr Parliament have done, namel,
TO protect themselves against the in
iqutous misuse of the injunction.
In England, the great power of tn
: Court OF Chancery was not used I
e assist the rich and powerful in thei
y oppression of the poor and weak.
d me British court of equity has. "a
I. years, been governed by certain wei
d .tsscognlzed and basic principles anon
~ ne who seeks equity must 7
e. equity. That is to say. he who saoS