The Connecticut labor news., 1922-03-10

 tering into a further review of equity proceedings Ill conection with industrial disputes, 1t IS of value to know what English precedents the American courts of equity had for isuing injunctions re- straining wage earners from dolng cer- tain specific acts
 As the British Courts of Chancery have not made a practice of issuing ln- functions in connection with industrial disputes, there Is a popular belief that no njunctions have ever been issued by these courts Ill ConeCtlon with strikes or other disputes between workmen and en- ployers.
 lnjunctions against striking work men in England did not become com- mon practice as they have III America for good and sufficient reasons the decision of Lord Chancellor Cairns and an act of Parliament.
 The British authorities, which have been examined, contain the record of but two cases-the Springfield Spinning Company vs. Riley and the Taf-Vale case.
 An examination of these two cases IS of particular value and importance because they indicate that the Ameri- can practice of equity, while inherited from England, has deliberately ignored English precedents and authority ill the isuing of injunCtions against striking Workrnen.
 In 1868 there was a strike against the Springfield Spinning Company, and the strikers issued placards and adver- tisements for the purpose of notifying other work1nen of the reasons for the strike. These placards resulted in keep ing workrnen away from the company's plant, and, finding that the workers publicity campaign prevented them from securing strike-breakers, the company applied to Vice. Chancellor Malin for an injunction which would restrain the is- suing of any further p1acards or adver- tisementS.
 The company claimed that they were being prevented from continuing their business and that the value of their prop erty was being seriously injured.
 The injunction was granted and ap- parently no appeal was taken to a higher court. But six years later, Ill the case of Assurance Company vs. Knott, the principle involved and the authority and powers of the equity court were decided by the highest authority. In this case, Lord Chancellor Cairns, ruled and Sir w. M. James, L. J., and Sir c. Mellish. L. J., his associates, concurred that:
 1.-The Court of Chancery had no
 jurisdiction to restrain the pubfica- tion of a libel, as such, even if 1t shduld be injurious to property.
 The decision of the Lord Chancellor III this case Is of particular value to us because 1t not only serves to indicate the disregard American courts of equity have shown for English precedents but a perversion of a mere action for libel into a property injury.
 The first state injunction issued against workrnen was by a Massachu- setts court in 1888 in the case of Sherry vs. Perkins. In issuing its injunction, the Massachusetts court quoted the Springfield Spinning Company's case as a precedent for its action, although IA years before, Vice-Chancellor Malin's injunction has been reversed and the principle upon which 1t had been issued repudiated by the Lord Chancellor and his associate vice-chancellors.
 The second inj junction issued by an English Court of Chancery is of equal, if not greater importance as a prece- dent It was issued in connection with the famous Taff-Va1e case.
 The strike against the Taff-Va1e rail- road took place in August, 1900. On September 5, 1900, Judge Farwell grant ed an interim injunction against the
 
 ants, restraining them from persuading or otherwise endeavoring to prevent per sons from working for the plaintiff, etc., etc.
 The union appealed from Judge Far wells action and when the case was heard, the Court of Appeals in pnani- nous opinion reversed and set aside Judge Farwell's injunction The rail- way company then carried the case to the House of Lords and, after it had been discussed at length, the House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and sustained Judge FarWe1l.
 The action of the House of Lords created intense opposition, and aroused the public conscience of Great Britain. vigor to the British. Labor Party, the re- suit being that Parliament enacted what is known as the Trades Dispute Bill, this law setting aside and vacating Judge Farwells injunction and the decision of the House of Lords and supporting the decision of the Court of Appeals
 Because of the all important and vital principles which are embodied III this law, it is herewith reproduced in full.
 "An act done in pursuance of an
 agreement or combination by two
 or more persons shall, if done in
 contemplation or furtherance of a
 trade dispute, not be actionable un-
 less the act if done without any such
 agreement or combination would be
 actionable.
 Tt 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 contemplation or further
 ance of trade dispute, to attend at
 or near house or place where a
 person resides or works or carries
 on business or happens to be, if they
 so attend merely for the purpose of
 peacefully obtaining or comnuni-
 eating in formation or of peacefully
 persuading any person to work or