Workmen's advocate., 1888-06-16
SAINT BOYCOTT
A WISE JUDGE IN SAN FRAN-
 ClSO, ENDORSES HIM.
Associations Have the Right to Inilu ence Patronage not Bound by ContraCt-Interesting Fix.
 tracts from Decision
 of Maguire's.

The right of ore or more persons to withhold their patronage from any one, or to influence, by le
 means, the withholding of pat, AHs age or dealings, otherwise kno,
 boycotting, was never brought in question until that practice was adopted as a defense by Organized Labor Then the Courts suddenly discovered that 1t was criminal. In New York, New Haven, and other Eastern cities workingmen have been put in peril of their liberty by judges who were evidently preju- diced against Organized Labor, and disposed to protect capitalists in any scheme they m ght concoct to re- duce wages and in other ways get the better of their employees.
 It Is refreshing, therefore, to find that @ judge in San Francisco has been honest enough to give reason able decision on case of boycotting which would, in this section Of the country, be declared especially crim- inal by the capitalists most humble servants on the bench.
 Judge Mcguire considered the boycott from 8 legal standpoint re- gently in decision and opinion sus- taining the demurrer to the once amended complaint, in the suit of Francis Labnutf against the Iron Holders Union of San Francisco, an action brought to recover S25, ,000 for damages for loss of employment, alleged to have been occasioned by the act of the union-the act charged to have been committed falling within the class of acts now com monly known as boycotting. La bHutf is an ironmolder who, on the 22d of October, 1877, was working at his trade at the Oakland Iron Works at S4 per day, expecting that the same would be steady. He lost employment because the defendant made demand upon his employers to discharge him. Prior to this the members of the union also went to the Judson Iron Works in Ala meda County and other iron works, where he would have obtained en- ployment, and prevented his obtain Ing work there. A demurrer to the complaint was interposed, and, says Judge Mcguire:
 The case thus presents the single ques- tion of the legality of boycotting, unen- Cumbered with any eXtraneouS consider atlOns of force and violence, or threats of force, or violence, or trespass, such as have generally constituted the grard- nten of the cases of alleged boycotting heretofore submitted to the courts for decision.
 The unions counsel did not insist upon any formal defects in the com plalnt, but chose to rest his de- murrer upon the objection to the substantial merits of the alleged cause of action stated ln the con- plant. Says Judge Mcguire:
 A party who, by any unlawful act, in Jures another either in his trade or call ing, his life, or limb, or property, is re- sponsible to the injured one to the full extent of the damage thus unlawfully occasioned to him. Actions Lave also been maintained and sustained for dam ages occasioned by inducing persons, legally bound by contracts, to violate their obligations; but it has never been held, so far as l am aware that civil action could be maintained against one who has, without misrepresentation or representation of any kind concerning the character, capacity or other quail ties of q thlrd person, asked that his em- ployment be discontinued at the end of his immediate term of service.
 In this case Laboeuif' $ employment was from day to day, wherefore he had a perfect right to quit his employers ser vice without notice on any day, and his employer had likewise legal right to discharge him at the end of any day s service without previous notice.
 There must therefore be some other element-some element of unlawfulness or violation of legal right in the act of the persen requesting the discharge of auOtHpr from emDIpk mpnt ta yIva risa