The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-11-25
DECISION FOR "THE SUM-"
pOYCoTTERs AND INTIMIDl TORS
INJOINED.

xu.tice Booksta,cr, in Special Term of the
enprrne Court, Grants This Newspaper
an Injunction Pending Trial of Its Ao-
ton Against striking Printers and Allies.
TuE srS PRINTING AND PUB
IIsHtSG ASSOCIATION
,o,,D., sesSStialrTEss,Ss% .
IouS II DELANEY AND OrHERs
Seymour. D. Thompson and Franklin Bart
hR tor the motion.
William j. O'Sulliran Henry Clark John
son and James W. Finch. Of Counsel.
opposed.
BocKsrAvEr. j.:
This Ia an application for an Injunction
~, 8spie ie in an action brought hy the
rlantitr. a corporation engaged in the rublica-
zion OF daily newspapers known IA THE Sun
and The EVENING sun. for an Injunction re-
srs.ning the eevcral defendants. who are
officers q various labor organizations con-
rectrd = tn tho printing trade. from ITO sum-
marie the prayer for relief 1I advising or
requesting advertising customers to de-
ais, OF refrain from advertising In tho
tappr- named. and t2) from rcsorting
10 any species o. threats. intimidation.
force or fraud for such purposes. or procuring
other Icrsons 40 to do. and from preventing or
sr.mrt ne 10 prevent ncwsdealers from sell
ing such papers: go from making any re-
quests. giving any advice or resort uG to any
tIe,es " persuasion. threats. inttm iations.
force or fraud to bring about such result from
"rrke'lng" the establishment Of IN" plaintiff
orUnr " it, branch offices aud by request. adj
we. persuasion. intimidation. threat. force.
frtul pr ."fnnatory publications. inducing
H. ,mrlrv"e- TO quit the employment ot this
r'art 7 and from In ans other manner or
Of ut. flN IRON.
er.y. property rights or business Of the
p.iniiG
The origin - the difficulty between the plain
~ luI rs former EMPLOYEES wa~ a decision
reached by ,hn aiutir to convert its office into
An zen" or "noH-uu on" flee: that is. to
en-. m,H who are not members OF the union
a. vol ~ men who were. 1hcrcupon. the
rlr.. her. ~ tn union abandoned their post
a. o-. IN M POPULAR phrase. struck"
|. no. o.! suut-,I 'hl' the defendant and the
cr.aaisa','- REPRESENTED Nv them have COM
m .'.l To greater or less extent. the acts that
lay, come 20 be- generally known and described
t,A "btEcot'' Hga INST the plaintiffs pUblica-
t.o.s. tha-e acts consisting for the most past,
IN a'v rfis mora ar 'css successful to induce
advertisers % wi'h raw thar patronage from
the p'ainrG under penalty 81 losing the custom
o., tn. members AMI the friends OF the organI-
rer.ualn n: now ~lealers not to handle the pro-
tcr bal Paper, ard readers not To buy them.
TNa rule app, cable 20 such "A situation rs I
gather IL from the authorities " this State Ia
that persons can lawfully combine and make
eTart e. benefit Themselves 20 any extent. 30
long they do not hy force threats intim!.
da'ian or 'raui seek to hurt others In orler 10
go benefit th-msalvss Al that point their acts
become unlawful and Il matters not that such
injury does not consist IN taking away any
thins which another possesses, tut only In In
lettering In such a way that he shai not re-
celye benefit such as patronage advertising
and sale Of raperS in this case. employment
Ia n Curran vs.. Gd'rH l52 y. Y. 49,. or other
advantages that might be received but for
such Interference
Cpon the whole. Il seems TO me that the
DEFENDANTS have. In this case. so conducted
themselves as TO come. TO some degree. within
this prohibition.
II does not matter that their conduct has
hsen "a! -. 'a.ae! Ani orderly: that they have
resor'el to No Violence. nor even threatened
any that they have in short. acted ike the
Intelligent, capable men they are. and must
be- TO meet the requirements OF their occupa-
ton.
Neither does It matter whether or not they
have, a. they claim. great and sufficient provo
cation for their strike and the vehemence o,
their feeling since that strike. Numerous
an 'Avits are submitted 20 show that the
raintif was In fault for the breach that oc-
cured between II and its Old employees md
that the 'ormer was preparin: 'or II lockout"
which the latte; learned o.. AMI an;iclrated by
T. strike. Upon this point. G- 10 where tho
chief blame lies. PASS no judgment and II Is
unnecessary 20 do 50. Let = b" assume. Tor
-. n.
VA, fault. was arbitrary AMI uncoucli Ia, tory (:
al thl' 4" defendants have Just ground
for rr.iint AMI that their acts have
beer ony such a. human ma ure Is prone TO-
und' the urpEOratiOn have assumed to eI ST.
Come q ,sp. what Is undoubtedly the case
that ley have not carried on their contest, as
Is to- O 81 don. uud"r similar circumstances
hy ignorant men. In bl nd spirit Of resent
m-nt seek ne Ouly 10 inIure the plaintiff !e-
CARELESS o. whe her they would be- thereby
b"l"''el or not: but thai they have. on tho
c1ntriry. directed their efforts f. a most
rarpha. az -kifll manner to proving their
orgdG "a ions dangerous antagonists and have
thus Insured thor own ult mate benefit by rem
der ne I, "G-irg IN future 20 MAINTAIN rates and
& So NE Otn"r advantages for their mem beers
Notwithstanding all this the fact romans
taat ID" law Toes not permit such warfare by
tu'n In"'IgIS Whatever the ITONOcatiOn UNI
less ini"e !. he comrlaInining rarity has en-
ploy"i asa.us, tho defendants the same
methods complained OF. But that il not the
case here
IN" Defendants RELY uron certain statements
maj" 10y the court in Sinsheimer United
Ga ~m'W Workers II Hun 2l5l. where in
!unctlYc relief vas dcnI d: but to make this
cas- parallel T. that II would be necessary to
show that The plaintiff had com bined with
other employers not to employ members OF
the defendants organizat ,ons. No such com
hina'on Is shown. II is not even shown. 1t
might he added, that tho plaintiff has refused
N r"tain. or N reHnGags. such memhsrs an
ply 'H In cod faith all It has refused to do il
10 limit rs A. ection Of employees to such
members and employ none other.
The defendants urge, furthermore. that all
thN acts com planned OF are com plsted and past,
and, for that reason. that no Injunction should
issue and also that there In no indication that
such acts will he continued or repeated; but.
on the contrary, there Ia an offrr to desst.
ina IA not an unconditional offer. however.
bnt IL made 10 depend uTon the decision by
the 'ourt TINT those acts are unlawful
Ih@r" IL also some uncertainty. upon the am
IA N hnw In ba dot