the intervention of the court. Other facts to be shown are the irresponsibility, from a financial standpoint, of the parties against whom the injunction is sought; their numbers, making suits at law numerous and burdensome; and the preponderance of the threatened loss of the complainant over the inconvenience to the respondents which would follow the issue of the writ; though not all of these would be required in a single instance. (My Maryland Lodge, No. 186, Int. Ass'n of Machinists v. Adt, 59 Atl. 721; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212, 17 N. E. 307; Coeur d'Alene Consol. and Min. Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. 260; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 15 Sup. Ct. 900; Dudley v. Hurst, 67 Md. 44, 8 Atl. 901; Brace Bros. v. Evans, supra, etc.) The only force of an injunction is to maintain present conditions, and it has no power to procure the restoration of conditions alread changed. Hence no injunction will issue relating exclusively to acts already committed. Neither will they issue to restrain the commission of criminal acts, unless such acts involve injuries to property or property rights for which the law does not afford redress. Where such injuries are threatened, however, an injunction will issue, even though the prohibited acts would be punishable as criminal. (Sherry v. Perkins, supra.) In its use in labor disputes the injunction is in general restrictive or prohibitory rather than mandatory. Thus while a railroad company may be ordered by a mandatory injunction to afford equal facilities for ail freight offered it, its employees can not, by a similar injunction, be compelled to remain in its service. (Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co., 54 Fed. 730.) Though if a workman remains with a railroad under the circumstances indicated, he will be liable for contempt if he refuses personally, after notice had, to carry out the provisions of the injunction. (In re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 17 Sup. Ct. 658.) Where there is no adequate proof of intimidation or impending danger no writ will be granted, nor will mere persuasion and the offer of transportation from the locality where the strike is in progress, or the payment of strike benefits to those who will abandon their employment and join the union, call for the issue of an injunction, provided no coercion or intimidation is attempted. (Johnston Harvester Co. v. Meinhardt, 60 How. Pr. 168; Everett Waddy Co. v. Richmond Typ. Union No. 90, 53 S. E. 273; Rogers v. Evarts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264.) Actual violence is not necessary, however, to ground a successful complaint. The numbers of the striking employees, their positions, attitudes, looks, ridicule, threats, etc., may produce intimidation and coercion, against which an injunction will issue. (Barr v. Essex Trades Council, supra; Jordahl v. Hayda, 82 Pac. 1079.) or otherwise objectionable treatment, both at home and in public places, are among the rights of every citizen; and an employer's interest in such rights for his employees is sufficient to support a complaint from him and the securing of an injunction on a proper showing of facts. (American Steel and Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers', etc., Union, 90 Fed. 608; In re Debs, supra; Jersey City Printing Co. v. Cassidy, 53 Atl. 230.) In general it may be said that what acts will warrant the interference of a court of equity will be determined by the attendant circumstances of each case rather than by any general rule; and in deciding the matter, the courts will consider the spirit and intent, and not merely the form and letter of the act or word. (Coeur d'Alene, etc., Co. v. Miners' Union, supra.) Labor organizations may be named as parties to proceedings for an injunction, whether incorporated or not. (Loewe v. California St. Fed. of Labor, 139 Fed. 71; Purvis v. Local, No. 500, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, supra; American Steel and Wire Co. v. Wire Drawers', etc., Union, supra.) They may also be assessed for damages resulting from acts of members done under the directions or by the approval and consent of the union (Purvis v. Local, etc., supra; Parker v. Bricklayers' Union, 21 O. L. B. 223; Patch Mfg. Co. v. Protection Lodge, No. 215, Int. Ass'n of Machinists, 60 Atl. 74), and may be fined for contempt of court, where injunctions prohibiting certain acts have been violated. (Chicago Typ. v. Franklin Union, No. 4, 36 Legal News 18; Franklin Union No. 4 v. People, 77 N. E. 176.) A late case holds, however, that, in the absence of statute, neither fines nor damages can be assessed against an unincorporated labor organization, though it may be properly named in an injunction. (Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Iron Molders' Union No. 125, supra.) As to the binding effect of an injunction upon individual strikers and their liability both for damages and in contempt proceedings there is no dispute. Nor is it necessary to name as respondents all persons who may be subsequently held to be in contempt for a violation of the provisions of a decree, since all persons who have notice of its being issued and of its contents will be held to be bound by it. (In re Lennon, supra.) The above is a statement in brief of what may be considered the principal points of the common law applicable to strikes and their related labor difficulties. Not all of these can be looked upon as definitely settled, since diverse rulings are to be found on some of the points discussed, and the courts differ considerably in the application of these rather general principles to individual cases; but this summary is believed to be in accord with the general trend of the es INDEX. A. Page. locomotives, etc.) 732, 733 708-711 472, 473 42 427 486, 487 472, 473 424-427 486, 487 921, 922 742 636-039 738, 739 496, 497 120-123 492, 493 953, 954 putes.) 110 settled by joint agreement and bý arbitration, 1901 to 1905.) lockouts for the United States, by States and geographical divisions, 1881 to 1905 (Table 738, 739 497 124-127 492, 493 922 742 636-639 738,739 498 124-131 492, 493 786-811 732, 733 472, 173 421-427 486, 487 472, 473 424 427 186, 487 B. 732.733 708-711 172, 473 424-427 486, 487 Paga. 812-817 732, 733 472, 473 424-427 486, 487 732, 733 708-711 472, 473 421-27 486, 487 732, 733 708–711 472, 473 424-427 486, 487 732, 733 709-711 472, 473 428-131 486, 487 732, 733 708-711 472, 173 428-431 486, 487 732, 733 708-711 472, 473 428-131 486, 187 732, 733 708-711 172, 173 428-431 486, 487 C. 922, 923 742, 743 636-639 738, 739 498-501 128-139 492, 493 817-819 472, 473 428-131 486, 487 732, 733 472, 173 428-431 486, 487 732, 733 472, 473 428-31 486, 187 732, 733 Carriages and wagons-Concluded. Page. 486, 487 74, 75, 78 77,79 77,79 72, 73, 78 76, 78, 79 70, 71, 78 76-78 742-762 772, 773 703-771 76-79 employees thrown out of work, number and per cent of, in strikes due wholly or partly to 64,68 58, 59, 66 63,68 63, 64, 68 6:22-635 60-62, 66, 67 64,68 496-579 614-621 580-613 56, 57, 65, 66 63,61,67 112-111 732, 733 472, 473 432-135 486, 487 732, 733 712-715 472, 473 432-135 486, 487 732, 733 712-715 472, 473 432-135 486, 487 472, 473 432-135 tries, 1881 to 1905 (Table VI)..... 486, 487 923, 924 7-13 6-10-643 738,739 501-503 136-147 492, 493 732, 733 472, 473 432-435 |