By SAMUEL GOMPERS, President, American Federation of Labor. Congressional Perfidy-The Responsibility-Labor's Duty. Judge Upholds Labor's Injunction Contention. 517 520 522 524 525 526 Vol. XV. DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS AND VOICING THE DEMANDS OF THE TRADE UNION MOVEMENT ON INJUNCTIONS IN LABOR CASES. By DAVID SILVERSTEIN, Master in Chancery, State of Massachusetts. NE of the great questions before the people of this country is whether or not injunctions, which have been so liberally granted by the courts in most every state of the union, against members of labor unions shall continue, or whether the power of granting injunctions in such cases shall be taken away from the court. I desire to discuss this question rather from the standpoint of a lawyer, than from that of an interested party; simply as a lawyer who sees the law with reference to the question as he finds it from cases adjudicated and from the principle of law involved. Injunctions are applied in the equity side of the court, and naturally, the first question is: "What is the equity side of the court, and how has it come to be a part of our procedure?" Originally in England, the country from which our common law comes, there were only common law courts-that is, courts that would apply common law principles, and apply remedies that only common law courts could give. The remedy would be an order to the sheriff or his deputy to take the goods and chattels of the defendant, but this was never directed against the person. However, at that time, there arose a great many cases where the common law method of procuring a remedy was wholly incomplete and sometimes of no effect; and soon we find that a petition would be issued to the King, as sovereign, to give a better remedy and a better and more complete relief in certain cases where the common law was inadequate. The King, as sovereign, having the prerogative to grant or refuse a petition, would often grant what was desired in the petition. Oftentimes the King in giving the remedy would have his decree running against the person ordering him to do or not to do a certain thing, similar to our equity decrees, and for failure to obey would imprison. Soon petitions came to the King, rather rapidly, and on account of the volume of these petitions, the King was compelled to delegate that power of assisting litigants, by referring the matter to his council and to his chancellor. These petitions soon became more numerous and then there arose a court, to which these matters were referred |