Evening star., 1937-02-03
DECISION GRANTING INJUNCTION TO GENERAL MOTORS

1cNfKAI
full business, and carrying 1t on in
. lawful manner. They had done
nothing to the defendants, or any
Of them, either illegal, immoral or
unjust. They were paying wages
to their teamsters in fact greater
than the union teamsters received.
because they made no deductions
for certain lost time which the
union employers made. The law
protects them in the right to en-
ploy whom they please. at prices
they and their employees can agree
upon, and to discharge them at
the expiration Of their term Of
service or for violation of their
contracts. This right must be
maintained, or personal liberty Is
q sham. So, also. the laborers
have the right to Ak price upon
their labor, and to refuse to work
unless that price is obtained.
Singly, or in combination, they
have this right. They may or
ganize in order to improve their
condition and secure better wages.
They may use persuasion to in
duce men to join their organiza-
ton, or to refuse to work except
for an established wage. They may
present their cause to the public in
newspapers or circulars, in peace
able way, and with no attempt at
coercion. If the effect in such case
is ruin to the employer, it is
damnum absque injuria-that is,
without injurJ, without damage
for they have only exercised their
legal rights. The law does not per-
nit either party to use force, vio-
lence, threats of force or violence.
intimidation, or coercion. The
right to trade and the personal lib
erty of the employer alone are not
involved in this case. the right OF
the laborer to sell his labor when.
to whom, and for what price he
chooses is involved"
That case is on all fours with
the issue here involved. Again in
Baltic Mining Co. VS.. Circuit Judge,
1T Mich. 633, the court has
very clearly stated its position, and
in passing I might say that one
OF the spectators in the court room
here yesterday was the learned
Circuit Judge Patrick H. O'Brien,
that made the decision in the Cir
cult Court and refused injunctive
relief to the plaintiff in that case.
and was ordered by the Supreme
Court to issue the injunctive re-
lief to the plaintiff. The court
uses this language:
I'VE find here that the court did
In the first instance grant this
temporary relief by injunction, on
September 20, in apparent exercise
of his discretion, and. on Septem-
Der 20, withdrew such relief by
dissolution OF the same. because
convinced by argument Of counsel
that he had no discretion in the
matter. The effect of this action.
under the circumstances disclosed
in the record, is matter Of which
1t is no violence to say there might
be some judicial notice and fore
sight. When the probable results
were suggested by counsel, with an
application for some kind Of re-
straining order to guard against
the same, the court indicated a
desire to grant the relief, and ap-
parently only refrained on the
ground that he had no power un-
der the bill. When later, on Octo-
ber 4, further application was
made. supported by large number
of affidavits disclosing fully the
condition which had developed. as
was previously feared, the court
again refused for the same reason.
We are impelled to hold that the
respondent misconstrued the law
and his official duty, under the
showing made.
Factors Bearing
Upon Restraining Order.
when such an application is
made for preliminary protection,
the questions to be passed upon
and determined from the showing
are only the necessary factors in
granting or denying temporary
restraining order.
1T is not necessary that the
complainant's rights be clearly es-
tablished, or that the court find
complainant Is entitled to prevail
on the final hearing. 1t Is suffl-
cient If it appears that there is a
real and substantial question be-
tween the parties. to be investi-
gated in a court of equity. and.
in order to prevent irremedial in