i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
i STEAM COAL - Clpdigital.org
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
y the use of vile language and opprobrious names<br />
and epithets, to prevent the said employes from remaining<br />
in the employ of said company. They<br />
have not done any of these things above alleged.<br />
John X. Jenkins, Harry Wollock, David Estep<br />
and John Turner, have by peaceable persuasion<br />
only tried to induce certain of the company's employes<br />
to quit work and join the union or go<br />
away. James Purcell and John Turner paid some<br />
of those who quit and went away some money,<br />
and David Estep offered Martin Wallace some<br />
money if he would persuade some of these employes<br />
to quit work. We notice these instances<br />
because the amendment covers them.<br />
The defendants were employes of the plaintiff<br />
and the cause of the strike was a difference between<br />
them on account of a reduction in wages.<br />
They had the right to strike and quit work for<br />
any reason or for no reason. The law gives them<br />
that right. It also gives to the men who came<br />
to take their places the right to work on any terms<br />
they saw fit to make. So the men who quit work<br />
and the men who took their places were equally<br />
within their rights, and the law must and will<br />
secure them in the exercise of those rights. When<br />
any man or number of men undertake to abridge<br />
those rights injunction is a proper remedy. A<br />
court of equity may interfere by injunction to prevent<br />
persons from attempting by intimidation,<br />
threats of personal violence and other unlawful<br />
means to force employes to quit work and join<br />
in a strike. State Line & Sullivan Railroad Co.<br />
vs. Brown et al., 11 District Report, 509. It is<br />
needless to multip'y authorities in support of this<br />
proposition. It would be the imperative duty of<br />
a court of equity to interfere by injunction where<br />
employes or those about to be employed had been<br />
threatened, intimidated and assaulted becaute they<br />
were, or were about to become, employes to take<br />
the places of men who had quit work.<br />
The plaintiff was<br />
ENTITLED TO AN INJUNCTION<br />
under the allegations of the bill. To justify<br />
the maintenance of it there must at least have<br />
been shown intimidation by acts or words, some<br />
thing threatened or done to take away the exercise<br />
of the free will of the employes. With the exceptions<br />
already discussed there was nothing of<br />
that kind shown. The mere presence of these<br />
defendants and the others under the conditions<br />
shown was not unlawful. They neither said nor<br />
did anything calculated to interfere with the exercise<br />
of free will by the new employes. It would<br />
be a dangerous assumption of power and an unwarranted<br />
interference with the rights of the citizen<br />
for the court to maintain an injunction simply<br />
on account of numbers. Members of working<br />
men's associations have the right either as individuals<br />
or as an <strong>org</strong>anization to cease work for an<br />
employer, and to use all lawful means to induce<br />
inc. uUAL 1 K/\lJli li U L.L.J11 1 IN . -, I<br />
others to cease to work for such an employer,<br />
but an injunction will lie to restrain them<br />
from attempting by force or threats to prevent<br />
others from working for such employer.<br />
Beach on Injunctions, Vol. 1, Section 504.<br />
Persuasion, even supplemented by the offer of<br />
money, is not an interference with the exercise<br />
of free will. "A permanent injunction will not<br />
be granted against a combination of persons whose<br />
object it is to entice away workmen from their<br />
employment, nor can the employer maintain an<br />
injunction in equity to recover such damages as<br />
he has sustained." Beach on Injunctions, Vol. 1,<br />
Section 505. They (the strikers) are free men and<br />
have the right to quit the employ of the plaintiff<br />
company whenever they see fit to do so, and no<br />
one can prevent them; and, whether their act of<br />
quitting is wise or unwise, just or unjust, it is<br />
NOBODY'S BUSINESS BUT THEIR OWN.<br />
And they have the right to use fair persuasion to<br />
induce others to join them in their quitting. This<br />
was said hy the supreme court of Missouri in the<br />
ease of Hamilton Brown Shoe Co. vs. Saxey, 2d<br />
American and English Dec. in Equity 356.<br />
In Erdman vs. Mitchell, 207 Pa., the court say:<br />
"It is argued defendants either individually or by<br />
<strong>org</strong>anization, have the right now to peaceably persuade<br />
plaintiffs and others not to work and their<br />
employers not to hire them; so they have. This<br />
deliverance of the supreme court clearly shows<br />
that the defendants, whose conduct we are now<br />
considering, were clearly within their rights in<br />
all they did.<br />
"Workingmen who are dissatisfied with the<br />
wages they are receiving, or have other grievances,<br />
may 'strike,' either individually or as a union.<br />
without making themselves amenable to law."<br />
To accomplish the purpose of their strike they<br />
have the right to speak of and publish their reasons<br />
and grievances, and, by argument, entreaty<br />
and other legitimate means, to persuade their fellow<br />
workers and others that their cause is just.<br />
Striking miners, as any other association or <strong>org</strong>anization,<br />
have a right to maintain a camp or a<br />
camp meeting, and to have speeches and addresses<br />
free from incendiary or inflammatory language.<br />
for the purpose of attracting and gaining new<br />
converts to their way of thinking; and, to advance<br />
the interests of their cause, they have the right to<br />
do anything that does not unlawfully interfere<br />
with the rights of others. Cook & Sons vs. Dolan<br />
et al., 6th D. R. 524. In the case cited it was<br />
shown that the strikers had established a camp<br />
and paraded with a flag and music. On page 526<br />
the court says: "Whether the conduct of the<br />
strikers is unlawful or not depends on circumstances.<br />
If the camp is established and the<br />
parades with music are indulged in in a reasonable<br />
degree and manner, but to attract the plaintiff's<br />
miners and to impress upon them the magni-