The Connecticut labor news., 1922-03-24

consideration Ot the theories which nave gradually been developed by the judicia ".
 The fact that there were no preced ents to guide them in issuing such ln- functions, compelled our American cour ts of equity to announce and develop some theory which would seemingly s upply reason for the issuing of such injunctions, even though 1t did not justi fy them.
 Courts of equity exist partly to pro- tect property from irreparable injury when there Is no adequate remedy at law With this as foundation, num- ber of American courts evolved the ju- dicial theory that business was property and that an irreparable injury to this business justified the court in issuing injunctions.
 In direct connection with this concep- ton there developed the theory that the employer had a property right in the wares, and, in addition, property right in the labor; that Is to say in the serv- ices of his employees.
 The distinctions between what consti- tutes property, business and personal rights are not difficult to under stand. They are clearly defined both in our or dinary language and in the provisions and phraseology of the law.
 Business Is not property! Busi-
 ness is the energy, activity, and
 method by which men dispose of
 property for profit Labor is not
 property! Labor IS the service
 which one man gives to another for
 wages, or the energy which is ap-
 piled to man to create something for
 his personal use or for sale to
 V0h0 ffpI
 bute; 1t IS only the results of labor
 which can become property.
 The essential distinction between busi- ness and property IS clear, definite and impossible of misconstruction.
 An illustration is afforded by the re- tail dealer the busilding ir which his store is located is property all of the goods in the store is property To convert his property into profits, the property owner must engage in business so that he may sell his goods to others to those who come into the store.
 It is evident that the store-keeper has no property right in the person who en- ters the store to purchase even though the customer may have dealt with him for years.
 Should an old customer be enticed tc another dealer because of more favor able prices, or any other consideration what has taken place? The original store-keeper still his property-it his not been destroyed or irreparab1y in- jured-all that has occurred is loss of profit through failure to make certain sales. LazV Can Gmarantee Only Right to Sell
 The law does not provide nor could it guarantee a profit to every owner of property, or guarantee customers to ev- cry one who desired to sell goods All goods. If for any reason others are un- willing to buy these goods, the law can. not compel them to become purchasers The % employer.s ,s plant, the 1naehneEy CT, storeroon are property His business consists of his efforts to dispose of his property at a profit. The property i> properly protected by law from injury or destruction, but it would be incon. sistent and absurd, as we'll as contrar, to the law, to assert that this property ownership of buildings, material and fin iched product carried with 1t any prop erty right in those who produced or pur- chased the finished product. If suct property right existed in the producer or customer, the courts would be justi fled, through injunctions, in restraining anyone from injuring. such property that is, in offering or giving employment to someone already in another's employ or in selling goods to purchasers to the business injury of the manufacturer ol merchant who had originally supplied these individuals
 No law, and no court, would at-
 tempt to compel any one to buy
 goods from certain firm because
 their transfer of patronage to an-
 other would injure the business of
 the first party.
 The. same principles hold good
 with labor The owner of an es-
 tablismnent, which is property, does
 not for this reason acquire a prop
 erty right in the services of those
 he employs. The only property
 right which one man ever had in
 another mans services-his labor
 was when some men were masters
 and others slaves.
 Ii the employer had property right that IS an ownership III the labor ol service of his employees, he would neces sariy have to enjoy an ownership II the laborer.
 Embloye's Effort Not Proberty Of Embloyer
 There is a definite distinction whicl we must have in mind in connection with the labor of an enploye. The pro duct of the employees labor is the em ployer's property, but the services - the labor-of the employe is an entirely separate factor. The product of labor is material, which is bought, sold or de stroyed by the owner, while the pro ducer is a human being and a free mar in whom no one can hold a propert, right.
 A mans power to labor is a part O himself-it cannot be separated iron the individual-the form of service whether mental or physical, or both. cal make no difference. The employer ma, pay wages to men whose labor is who'll, mental, the result of their mental worl being the creation of something ma terial which becomes the employer property. but the employers ownership of this property does not imply or ere O,uoerchiD cf fI1a ern01ove'