Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-20

The decision rendered by Judge Arm
strong yesterday in what is known as 1.-The
boycott case' is given below in full and
will, no doubt, be read with great deal of
interest, as it is the first time this question
has been passed upon in this State:
In the Superior Court of the county of sacra-
mento State of California;. S. McClatchy ct
ais, plaintiffs VS.. G. W. Mckay ct ais, defend
ants. This is an action to perpetuaily restrain
the defendants from boycotting the plaintiffs to
the injury of their business.
on the 22d of October, 1890, the Hon W. c.
Van Fleet, Judge of this Court. granted rule
upon the defendants to show cause before the
Court why provisional injunction should not
issue restraining them, pending this action, from
committing the injurious acts averred in the
complaint The defendants appeared in obedi-
ence to the rule to show cause, and objected to
the sutiiciepcy of the facts averred in ire COM
plant IN warrant the relief sought This admits
the truth of the averments OF the complaint for
the purpose of the decision as TO whether the
only question is, does the complaint state facts
sufficient to warrant or Justify the granting such
an injunction?
brief epitome of the complaint will be suf-
feient to illustrate the reasoning which has led
the Court 10 the conclusion TO which the Court
has arrived. 1t appears from the complaint that
the plaintiffs are The owners, proprietors and pub
fishers of the Erentng Bee, newspaper pub
lished in the city OF Sacramento, and they have
had and now enjoy lucrative and profitable
business; that they have large list OF paying
subscribers and great number of advertising
Patrons that from the list of subscribers to their
paper and the advertisements published
therein they have derived and are deriving
q large and valuable income; that the
plaintiffs have large sum of money, that
Is about $4,000, invested in property, ap-
planes machinery and utensils uked in the
publication OF their newspaper; that some time
ago the plaintiffs, for the purpose of increasing
the attractions of their pularQpd it hV
publishing in it some literary matter printed
from stereotyped plates obtained from the East;
the plaintiffs for good cause discharged an en-
ploye, stereoiyper; that q part of the defend
ants were i'll the employ of the plaintiffs, some Of
whom had been in their employ for twenty
years and others for as much as four years: that
the plaintiffs employed Union and non Union
printers and paid the highest rate of wages and
the employees were satisfied with the rate of
wages; but they complained and found fault
on account of the use of the plates, and de-
manded pay for the amount of space occupied
in the paper by the plate matter, the same as if
they had by the ordinary process of setting type
composed the space, and they demanded the
dscoutinuance of the use of plates and because
the plaintiffs discharged the stereotyper
and declined 10 discontinue the use OF the
plates or pay the employees for the space occu-
pied by the plate matter, the same as If they
had composed the space by the ordinary process
of setting type, they struck and quit the employ
OF the plaintiffs without notice and without
afording them an opportunity to mploy printers
OF COlpOSlIOIS 10 compose the necessary matter
for the publication OF their paper; it further ap-
pears from the complaint that, thereupou, the
defendants conspired and combined together to
compel the plaintiffs TO comply with those de-
mands; that to that end they assumed and as
serted the right to dictate to the plaintiffs the
manner in which they should conduct and
manage their newspaper business; that they
declared ana asserted that they had the right
and authority to dictate to the plaintiffs whom
they might and whom they might not employ,
and how they might conduct and manage their
business; that to give effect to their assumption
and in aid of their common purpose they
threaten to ruin and destroy the business of the
plaintiffs unless they complied with their de-
mand; that in furtherance of the common pur-
pose, the defendants warned, intimidated and
threatened, and are continuing to and will con-
tnue to warn, intimidate and threaten any and
all persons TO deter them from entering the en-
ploy OF the plaintiffs or doing any work for
them; that the nature of plaintiffs business is
such that unless they are permitted TO
employ printers or compositors it will ultimately
be ruined and destroyed; that the defendants,
in furtherance of their common purpose, have
systematically, persistently and maliciously
visited great number OF the patrons of the
plaintiffs newspaper, both the subscribers and
advertisers, and by threats. lntim1datlons and
inducements, sought to persuade and induce
those patrons to discontinue their subscriptions
to and advertisements in the newspaper of the
plaintiffs whereby to reduce the profits and in
come of the plaintiffs derived from such sub
scriptions and advertisements; that to intimi-
date the proprietOrs of said paper, and to cause
them to withdraw their patronage therefrom,
the defendants printed and published and
caused to be circulated among the patrons of
the paper, circu ars, posters and other docu-
ments containing threats and intimidations
whereby the defendants seek to intimidate
those patrons so they will or may be driven
away from and refuse to pGtronize the plaintiffs
newspaper, and. among other things the de-
PENDANTS caused TO be printed and circulated, a
document containing these words: Boycott
the Sacramento Bee, in the interest of organized
labor. By order of the Council of Federated
Trades ofSae!amento;' thatin furtherance ofthe
same common purpose the defendants printed,
published and circulated a newspaper called
The Trades Union, containing, among other
things, the words Boycott the Bee;,' that in
furtheIance of the same common purpose, the
defendants printed and caused TO be circulated
among the patrons of the plaintiffs paper and
other persons a document which contains the
following language: 1.-THE business manager
of that paper (meaning the ErentRg Bee has
always been opposed to trades unions, although
he paid the union scale of prices and union men
were allowed to work in the office. On Octobe T
4th one page and a half of tie Bee was filed
with boiler plate matter. This was in viola
ton of our scale OF prices and when his atten-
ton was called to the fact, he informed the
-compositors that he would run his business to
suit himself. Every opportunity was given to
Mr.. Y. S. McClatcby to settle the grievance.
The Executive Committee was willing to allow
him to use the plates on hand, provided he
would not enforce the use of any more at the
end of that time they also agreed that If he
q
they would pay him for the plates on hand.
This wss declined by the gentleman on the
ground that he proposed to run his own bust
ness. We have no personal grievance with the
Bee proprietors This is a square fight for the
principles of our International Union and we
believe that we will have the support Of all
workingmen in this community. We therefore
ask you to use your endeavors TO keep all
printers from coming here during this trouble,
and request that you will give US your hearty
cooperation and support in our struggle
the complaint that by the means of those
circulars, publications and threats the defend
ants have intimidated, frightened and induced
a large number Of the patrons OF the plaintiffs
newspaper, both subscribers AND advertisers, to
withdraw their patronage and induced some of
them 10 enter into agreements whereby such
patrons have obligated themselves to refuse in
the future to patroniZe the business OF the
plaintiffs that in furtherance of their malicious
intent TO ruin the plaintiffs and their newspa-
per business. the defendants threaten TO con-
inue and unless restrained by injunction will
continue. TO Systematically carry on the boy
coiing the plaintiffs and their business, and
will, by threats, intimidatons and unlawful
persuasions deprive the plaintiffs OF great
number or all of their patToGs. subscribers and
advertisers, and will destroy their business and
property; and it is averred that Il the defend
ants are permitted TO continue their unlawful
acts and conspiracieS the property of the plain
tiffs viii be reduced TO half its present value.
and the plaintiffs aver that they have been
damsgcd by the acts OF the defendants in the
sum OF sl,e0); it further appears that the de-
PENDANTS are iDsOlvents, irresponsible ard I'M
able to respond in damages; that the injury
sought to be inflicted by the defendants upon
the plaintiffs is OF such nature that II cannot
ke computed in money
Ii would seem from the averments set out In
the complaint that the defendants have boy
cotted the plaintiffs in the interest not only OF
labor generally. but of organized labor, and
that the grievance OF which organized labor
complains is, that the plaintiffs discharged one
OF their employees, ana theg used in printing
their paper stereotype plates the matter OF
which had been composed or set up in type, and
stereotyped elsewhere than in the office OF the
plaintiffs, and they declined 20 pay the compost
tors In their employ FOX the space occupied in
the paper by the plate matter, for the reason
that they had not composed the matter, and
they were not willing TO pay the compositors
for work they never did. For these causes the
defendants conspired and combined 10 boycott
the plsintiffs and threatened to ruin their bust
ness by inducing the patrons of the plaintiffs 10
withdraw their patronage iTom the paper, and
by preventing other woTkmen from entering the
employ of the plaintiffs. This result was to be
accomplished by the means set out in the COM
plant which we have eptiomized in this opin-
ion.
Are the acts of the defendants unlawful?
Upon both principle and authority am forced
to the conclusion that they are unlawful 7
will proceed 20 give the reasons for this conciu-
the cardinal principle which must be kept
in view in the conside alton OF this case
is expressed in Section i70S OF the
Civil Code thus every person is
bound. without contract, 10 abstain from in.
iuring the person or property OF smother or in.
fringing upon any Of his rights" Have the
defendants injured any OF the property of the