The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-09-30
NONSUIT GRANTED.
Victory of the MOIders' Union
Over Lph9nf.

Judge CARRIER has granted q nonsuit in the
action brought by Francis LebGuf to re-
cover S25,000 from the lron-molders' Union
for alleged persecution in preventing him
from Obtaining employment The opinion
III the Judge, given orally yesterday morn
ing, is as follows:
The defendant is corporation organized for
tie purpose OF the encouragement and advance
ment OF moldefs and for the use OF every fair
means by which their elevation In the social
scale may be attained. Plaintiff is an rcnmoder
b. uade, aud was 4 member OF defendant union
at the time OF the acts complained OF by him, al
though Suspended from membership for a viola
ZION OF the Iules. The action Is to recover oam-
ages for alleged wrongful acts in causing him 10
lose his employment III the Oakland Iron Works.
The motion Tor nOnsut Is based upon several
grounds. First, that the act complained OF was
not unlawful; second, that II said act was unlaw
full. tie defendant, being corporation. cannot
have committed II. CORPORATION being unable 10
commit tort; any act done in its name or under
It's dIIec ion, which amounts TO a tort. is ultra
wires; third, that panlln was a member OF the
defendant union, and consented 10 the act COM
pl6ined OF.
The evidence tends to show that at the time OF
the commission OF the act complained Of, the
supply OF labor, Which constituted plaintiffs
trade, resid chiefly within The ranks OF the de
fendant union, and there was not enough or such
labor outside To perform The work. This Ques-
ilon OF supply and demand Is OF course relative
10 tue market, which supplied The f0undres
spoken of in the testimony. The extent OF the
territory OF such market was not shown. A rule
Oh the defendant was that none OF Its members
shall Work with non-un0n wolkmen. This rule
The defendant caused 10 be actively enforced, and
the fact was known TO plaintiff as al so 10 all per-
SONS engaged IN The employment OF his trade.
1ne polul involved has never been the subject
OF direct adjudication IN the courts OF this State
but numerous cases have been cited from other
states which bear upon tile general principle
lis hnal solution, however, does not In my Jndg
ment, depend so much upon the presidents cited
as urOn The question OF political economy which
IL presents. This question cannot be settled In Il
n -
changing conditions and relations OF capital TO
labor. the pecuniafy necessities OF the ono ana
the demands of tue OIher make IL Impossible TO
finally determine this question until some lxed,
definite proposition OF demand ana supply IS
achieved. In the nature OF things this can never
be accomplished under the present status.
The position occupied by the defendant Is that
the rule adopted by it is entirely lawful 1t was
admitted upon the argument That no law cond
control man III selecting the character OF LABOR
that he would perform or the rerson IN wnose
company lie would labor. This means that a man
may not only select his own vocation, eut In ply
ing IL lie may exercise the right arbitrarily 10 re-
fuse 10 wOik except under his own prescribed
conditions. This right is not denied TO MN, nor
Is II denied that even though the conditions pre-
scriDed by him be unreasonable that sun IL Is u
question Of his own solution whether lie VIII en'
ploy himself or remain IN employ when his ue-
inands are not complied with And so IN TINS
case The defendant contends that the exercise o,
its rule was no more than the exercise OF legal
right. That which one man may lawfully 10 can
be lawfully done by any number OF men.
Referring 10 the arguments Oh couusei VA
the legality of such organizations as defend
ant from the standpoint of public policy, ana
that the methods employed in such comblna-
tons are menace 10 the public peace, Judge
CARRIER said:
l do not know that this argument Is any
stronger now than when The conclusions mat
have adopted from GREENWOOD ana others were
reached. So far as this case Is concerned, what
ever violence the members OF tile defendant may
have perpetraied Ia executing their measures III
Oluer cases violence threats OIL VIOLENCE
are shown here. There is nothing In the evil
dence 10 justify this charge, but assuming II 10
be Otherwise, cannot CONCEIVE that sucn point
can be raised Iii the face OF the admission OF the
right Of combination. The conclusion reached
upon the first point OF this motion renders It IN
necessary to decide the other questions. III the
act complained OF was lawful, the corporation
might have committed II, as have heidi but no
action can be maintained upon 1t. Thus II was