Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-06-09

OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES.
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.
1t is evident that the store-keeper
has no property right in the person
who enters the store to purchase even
though the customer may have dealt
with him for years.
Should an old customer be enticed
to another dealer because of more IA
vorable prices, or any other consld-
eration--what has taken place? The
original store-keeper still owns his
property--it has not been destroyed
or irreparably injured-all that has
occurred is loss of profit through
failure to make certain sales.
Law Can Guarantee Only Right to
Sell
The law does not provide. nor
could it guarantee a profit to every
owner of property, or guarantee Gus
toners to every one who desired to
sell goods. All the law can guaran-
tee is the right to sell goods. If for
any reason others are unwilling to
buy these goods, the law cannot COM
pei them to become purchasers.
The employers plant, the machin-
cry in it, and the finished product in
the storeroom are property. His
business consists of his efforts to dis
pose of his property at profit. The
property is properly protected by law
from injury or destruction, but it
would be inconsistent and absurd, as
well as contrary to the law, to assert
that this property ownership of build
ings, material and finished product
carried with it any property right In
those who produced or purchased the
finished product. If such property
right exists in the producer or GUS
toner, the courts would be Justified,
through injunctions, in restraining
anyone from injuring such property;
that is, in offering or giving employ
ment to someone already in another's
employ, or in selling goods to pur-
chasers to the business injury of the
manufacturer or merchant who had
originally supplied these individuals.
No law, and no court, would at
tempt to compel any one to buy goods
from a certain firm because their
transfer of patronage to another
would injure the business of the first
party.
The same principles hold good with
labor. The owner of an establish
ment, which is property, does not for
this reason acquire property right
in the services of those he employs.
The only property right which one
man ever had in another mans serv-
ices--lfis labor--was when some men
were masters and others slaves.
If the employer had a property
right, that is an ownership in the la
Dor or service of his employees, he
would necessarily have to enjoy an
ownership in the laborer.
Employees Effort Not Property of
Employer.
There is a definite distinction which
we must have in mind in connection
with the labor of an employee. The
product Of the employees labor is the
employers property, but the services
the labor--of the employe is an en-
tirely separate factor. The product
of labor is material, which is bought,
sold or destroyed by the owner, while
the producer is a human being and a
free man in whom no one can hold a
property right.
A mans power to labor is part
of himself-it cannot be separated
from the individual--the form of
service, whether mental or physical,
or both, can make no difference. The
employer may pay wages to men
whose labor is wholly mental, the re-
suit of their mental work being the
creation of something material which
becomes the employers property, but
the employers ownership of this
property does not imply or create
any ownership of the employees MIND
the employe owns himself
and he has the same right to dispose
of his services, as the employer has
to dispose of his property.
What courts of equity have fire.
quently done in issuing labor injunc-
tons is to protect an employers bust
ness by assuming or asserting that
this is property.
If ii is true that the right to dc
business and the conduct of business
is property, then the right to en-
gage or to continue in business is
property, instead of personal right
If courts of equity assumed to regu.
late personal relations and personal
rights they would arrogate to them.
selves all of the jurisdiction now held
by the law courts and succeed in
abolishing trial by jury in the great
majority of cases now going before
the courts.
The Constitution confers equity
power upon the courts by stating that
they should have jurisdiction in law
and in equity just as the Constitution
makes it their duty to issue writs OF
habeas corpus and in substantially the
same manner as it provides for and
guarantees trial by jury.
As has been already indicated, the
equity power was originally applied
in America as it had existed in Eng
land at the time when our Constitu-
ton was adopted and our equity