The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-09-26
CAPITAL AND LABOR.
Labeuf's Case Against the Iron.
MOlders' Union.

In the case of Francis LabGuf against the
Iron-moders' Union. to recover 5000 dam
ages for alleged persecution in preventing
him from procuring employment. the motion
for nonsuit was argued yesterday by the at
torneys on both sides before Judge CARRIER.
w. w. Allen, representing the plaintiff,
was bitter in his denunciation of the means
employed by unions in carrying out their
plans for lettering the condition OF the
working class and asserted that a Calling
gun might as we'll be used in the enforce
ment of the laws of the unions as the sys-
TEN of boycotting. He considered the action
of the Iron-molders' Union toward the
plaintiff as an infringement upon the legal
rights of an American citizen.
Continuing in his remarks against union
ism, he declared that the case On trial brings
up evidence that unions have power which
can paralyZe business at any moment, and
If the nonsuit is granted it would have
tendency to give to unions legal right to
tyrannIZe over every avenue in which capital
operates. AS a result, capital may combine
to bar labor from employment and over
throw the business of the country for an in
definite period.
Let me ask you question:" the Court
interjected 1.-THE Government is always
Ieauy W DtlleuL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Wy an III
crease in the tariff rates. Now, If all IRON
founders combined against the employment
of union men and one founder lett the COM
bnati0n and hired union men, do you think
the other founders would have cause Tor ac-
ton against the one founder any more than
Lab9uf has against the Iron mOluerS'
UnionW
Attorney Allen replied by statiug that he
had delivered seventy-twO speeches upon the
tariff, ard considered himself well versed on
the subject. The Judge rej0ined that he had
not had the pleasure of reading the speeches.
Attorney Reddy observed that he had read
few of them and had voted Democratic
ever since He then delivered the closing
argument for the nonsult, and spoke out
bravtly in the interests OF labor organizations.
Dragging into the debate the laws of En-
gland in the past century be characterized
them as oppressive to the laboring class mas
much as they made employers safer than the
Gar of Russia and caused the jails to yawn
to receive employees who dared to object TO
any unfair action of their emp oyers.
History tells us, he said, that masters have
always considered that Number One was
created specially for their benefit, and they
have never been slow to take advantage OF
their selfish position. He was delighted to
know, he declared, that modern laws are
framed for equal rights, and that labor Is
now able to meet capital on the one ground
in the courts.
Mr.. Reddy then turned his attention to
Plaintiff LabGuf, and said: eff man is
so treacherous and odious to bis felow-men
that he cannot keep faith with them and can
no longer look 10 them for charity or mercy
he alone is 10 blame. If he has been re-
ducod to poverty let him 60 to the poor
house where paupers seek for aid, and not
attempt 10 wrench 1000 from those whom
he has treated with dishonor."
Referring to the question of legality of
signing document of agreement to refuse
to work " it'll Bon-uuion men, Mr.. Reddy OBJ
served that there was time when Washing
ton aud other memorable men signed docu-
ment which prohibited the purchase of En-
glish goods in the United States, and that
to-day the policy of Congress toward work
ingmen is plain, for even the saud-shoveler
is protected by the Exclusion Act.
Judge CARRIER has not yet given his decis-
ion in the matter.