The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1926-06-11

4 AUCTIONS were used against work
men In labor disputes is the case OF
5pringstead Spring Co. v. Riley,
which cam up for decision In England
n the year 1868. The defendants
we're workingmen striking against the
Naintifrs (bosses) concern, and had
posted advertisements urging other
vorkmen not 30 hire themselves out
o the company. The court held that
hey we're injuring tho company's
business and restatned them from so
loing. This decision was subsequent
v reversed by the higher courts, but
6 the basis on which every court Of
sQuity in the United States has since
acted In granting intunctions In labor
iispubes. Pending the appeal in the
higher courts, the British Labor Move
nent had passed what is known as
he Trades Disputes Bill, which effec-
lively and finally did away with the
granting of injunctions In labor dis
putes-in England.
Not so In America, however. The
arnples Of the promiscuous issuance
Of injunctions in labor cases, Chased
on reversed English precedents)
which have effectively crippled every
strike of great moment and innumer-
able strikes of smaller Importance
especially since the famous Cor rath.
er intamous) decisions of the Hon.
William H. Taft, U. S. supreme court
Judge in the case of Morres & Co. v.
Bricklayers' Union (1S90) and
\Thomas V. Cincinnati, etc, in re Phe-
Ian (the Debs case OF 1894.
Danbury Hatters.
TN Lowe V. Lawlor (Danbury Hat
y tiers Case, Feb. 1909 Chief Judge
Fuller of the o. 8. district court con-
Btrued the boycott used by the strik-
ing Danbury hatters as an illegal con-
spiracy and heavy damages were re-
covered against the workers which in
many instances deprived them Of
their homes and their LIES savings.
In the same year in which the boy
colt by the DanIbury Hatters was held
30 be an Illegal conspiracy and heavy
damages assessed against members OF
the Hatters' Union, the same supreme
court held the Erdman Act, which de-
clared that railroads could not dis
charge their employees for belonging
to a labor union, to be unconstitu-
t3onal. Blacklisting is legal, because
1t benefits the employers; boycotting,
which is the workers form Of black
listing, is illegal because it is used
by workingmen against employers.
The Boycott Becomes Illegal.
TN the same year the Buck Stove
L Range Co. VS.. American Fedora
tion of Labor came up for decision be-
fore U. S. Supreme Court Justice
Wright. The boycott in that case was
held Illegal, the judge delivering him
self Of this brilliant piece of wisdom;
1T (the choice) is between the
supremacy of law over the rabble or
its prostration under the feet of the
disordered throng.
1T is written in this record that
die into a members daily affairs
deeper than does the law, restrict
ing him in matters that the law
leaves free, and thus so continually
crowd their authority upon his at
tention that insensibly he comes to
regard them as of the first control
| in his affairs. His very respect
for authority assumes that all
authority is respectable, and so upon
them he relies, by them he is led.
Announcing freedom to pur-
chase what and where one will, they
deny that right to him himself; pro
claiming the right Of all men to la
Dor, they restrict it to the holders
of union card; declaring the right
to enjoy full earning capacity, they
limit his daily earnings to a stated
sum-"
When these decisions appeared,
dealing a death blow to the effective
ness of labor's most potent weapon,
the strike, what was the attitude OF
Samuel Gompers, the president Of the
American Federation of Labor? Was
Il one Of rebellion and resistance to
the unlawful interference by courts in
labor disputes on behalf of employ
ers? No. In his editorial in the
American Federationist OF December,
1908, ne counseled supine submission
TO this unlawful usurpation of power
by the courts and expressed the hope
that at some future time humane
judges would not act as harshly
against the poor wofldngman.
New York lnjunetions.
"A ND now, a few cases in our own
n state New Yorb). In Edelman,
etc, v. Retail Grocery and d. c. u,
ITO Misc. 61s, the court held that
where there was no real strike, patrol
ling the streets with signs ayerring a
strike should be enjoined-the court,
OF course. being the sole arbiter as 70
whether the strike was real or no.
In Altman v. Schlesinger and others