The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-25
THE RIGHTS OF NoN-UNION AGAINST
UNION LABORERs.


The Court OF Appeals OF Maryland, inc
highest court H. the state. has mace
decision within the past three weeks III
the case OF George w. Jucke " Assem-
bly, No. 1901. OF the Knights OF LABOR
touching the rights OF labor unions TO IN
terfere with non-union men, wnich IL
would be well for all labor unions al
over the country TO take Into cohsiue'a-
ton and TO ponder. The important iac,'
of the case were these:
Lucke was a "costums cutter'-that is'
one who took the measures OF customers
desiring 10 have clothing made TO order
AT the New York Clothing House In Bal
timore city. who cut the material ac-
cording 10 measurement and htted the
same to the customer. This had been his
trade for twenty years. and he was
thoroughly skilled man in his trade. In
August 1891. he was employed by the
New York Clothing House at a salary or
$50 week, and, at the time OF his en-
plovment he was assured by his en-
ployers that II he proved satisfactory to
them his employment would be perma-
nent. and they testified at the trial OF
the case that he was entirely satisfac-
tory. as they told him. and that they
would not have discharged him but for
what Is 10 follow.
After Lucke had been some time In
this employment his employers received
the following notice:
Clothing Cutters and Trimmers'
l.. A 1907. X. OF L.,
baltimore February l6. 1897.
Mossrs. Rosenfeld Bros (who constitute
the New York Clothing House,
Gentlemen.-CIothing Cutters and Trim
mers' l.. A. 1901. X Of L.. do herewith
desire TO inform you that in case the
non-onion man whom you have in your
employ is any longer retained we VIII
feel compelled to notify all labor oigan-
cations of the city that your house is
non-union one. Trusting that YOU may
give the matter due consideration,
We are respectfully yours.
CLOTHING CUTTERS UNION. &c.
To this his employers made answer:
"Your letter received and your request
viii no granted; the gentleman referred
10 will be discharged Saturday night.
He was accordingly discharged. al
though Lucke. In order TO retain his
place. had previously applied for admis-
sion to the union but had been unable
70 secure membership. and on account or
the enmity Of the union which he had
brought on himself he found great difh-
Guilty thereafter in getting any employ
ment, and finally was forced 10 accept
emplovment at greatly reduced rates. lie
then sued the Clothing Cutters Union
No. 1907. X Of L., in one Of the Baltimore
courts for damages. These facts, amongst
others. having been proven, the judge
holding the court decided that they did
NOT constitute legally a ground upon
which Lucke could sue the union and ne
dismissed the case. .Iucke appealed' anu
the Court of Appeals of Maryland unani-
noouslv reversed the decision or the
lower court and ordered that the cause
should be tried by jury, that 1t might
determine the loss which Lucke had SUI
fered.
II &c amazing that any judge admins
tering the laws that came to us from oui
Anelo-Saxon ancestry should have helu
that one man or body Of men acting TO-
qetber might. without responsibility 10
the injured party, take such steps 10 IN
lure another innocent person as TINS union
set ON foot against this man. AS th7
MARYLAND Court of Appeals said:
"such wanton and malicious interler-
ence for the mere purpose OIL III ne
another, is not the exercise VI d -,
right Such other person, who Is IN an
aIorIovnent nv which he is earning live
libood or otherwise enjoying the fruits
ord advantages Of his industry, or enter
Drise or skill. has a right TO pursue such
ennlovment undisturbed by mere mall
cious or wanton interference OF annoy
ance. Everyone has a perfect rlsht 10
nrotect or advance his business, II IN so
doing he infringes no superior iesal rlsil'
OF another. 1t would be strange
indeed. IL the law, under such stare %
facts as this record exhibits pro'lueu i'o
remedy"
The statement OF the Cutters Associa-
ton that unless the clothing house dis
charged Lucke. il would feel compelled
10 notify all labor organizations OF the
city that your house is a non-union one
was. under the circumstances, PLAIN
threat that unless the clothing house com
p,ied with a demand which the Cutters
Association had no sort of right TO make
,,non Il the association would injure the
hus,ness OF the clothing house as far as
It was able to do so, by persuadlhs All
members of labor unions 10 refuse all
business connections or associations WIN
the clothing house or its goods The Cut
ters' Association had no right to dictate
TO the clothing house whom 1t should
emnlov or whom it should not employ.
The clothing house had a right to employ
whom II chose to employ. and for
third party. who had nothing to do with
the affair, to threaten the clothing house
with injury II II did not comply with
that third party's unlawful demand, and
thereby cause an innocent man to lose
the employment out OF which he was max
ing his living, was plainly to do that In
nocent man an injury by an unlawful act,
for which that third party had plainly
made itself liable.
II may be said that IL was an unmanly
act in the clothing house to pay any
co