The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-09
ILLEGAL BOYCOTTING, THIS.
NOT LAWFUL FOR UNIONS TO FORCE
NON MEMBERS OUT OF WORK.
In This Cnse One Trade Union wn. Roy.

In This Case One Trade Union Was Boy
cottinE Another and Enforcing Its Boy
colt by Strikes-JuStice TrunN Grants
Permanent Injunction to Forbid 1t.
The idea. based on several recent decisions.
that members Of trades unions can lawfully
procure the discharge Of other mon bv threat
eninR to quit work has received a setback in
decision rendered by Justice TruaX OF the SUI
preme Court yesterday in granting petma-
nent injunction to the National Protective AS
ISOLATION OF steam Filters and HELPERS and
Charles McUueed restraining the Enterprise
Association OF Steam Filters and tho Progress
sive Association Of Steam Filters and HELPERS
and their delegates. James NJ. Cummings.
James !. Nurent and William J. O'Brien. from
interfering with the members OF the plaintiff In
their work or in obtaining or retaining en-
ulovment The case was an important ono
and occupied several DAYS in the trial.
IL was shown that the defendants had or
dercd strikes and refused to lot their members
work on Jobs on which members OF the plain
till were employed except small jobs. These
strikes had resulted in the discharge OF mem
bers Of the plaintiff from many large obs In
the city. The plaintiffs declared that they
wree victims Of n conspiracy to prevent them
from getting work. The defendants denied
there was any cons piracy and urged that they
members Of their organizations. 1t was also
set IN that no injunction would lie. rs the
plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law IL
they had Suffered any legal damage. II was
specifically set forth that the contrac ors OF the
buildings 59and 81 West Forthwith street.
Twelfth street and Seventh avenue and at Bur-
ling slim and Front street. induced by threats
OF strikes made by the defendants. had dis
oh argod members Of the plaintiff association.
Plaintiffs alleged that unless the defendants
we're enioined their organization would be
ruined and their men could not get work In
this city. The decision Of the Judge runs:
THE evidence shows that the defendants
have entered into combination which in eff
feet prevents and will prevent the plaintiff
McQueed and the other members OF the plain
tiff association from wortiny at his or their
trade in the city OF New York. In fact II was
shown that the defendant Cummings one OF
tle walking delegates OF the defendants) threat
tned a strike against the members OF the plain
till association and the plaintiff McQueed
wherever he found them at work, and that he
would not allow them to work at any Job In
the city except some small Jobs, whore En-
terpriss men we're not employed. and that he
did frequently strike 80 that members OF the
plaintiff associate ion were prevented from con.
tin uing work that they we're doing at the time
amounts to a conspiracy and is unlawful.
The case Is to be distinguished from the
case OF Davis vs. the United Engineers (2S A.
D.. inasmuch as the plaintiff was employed
only temporarily and until n union man could
be obtained to take his place. and in which IL
was also held that there WAS no evidence that
u conspiracy to prevent the plaintiff from oh.
tanning work existed. 1t is to be noted that
in the Davis case the court assumes for the
purpose Of that case that any individual. or
association Of individuals, has no right wan
tonly SO to interiors with man in the eXer-
else OF his craft. business or profession as TO
prevent him from earning his livelihood ia
that prUfess sion, craft or business.
ITO prevent one from working at any Job 10
this city except some small Jobs where Enter
prise men were not employed, is to prevent
him from earning his livelihood in his profess
sion. craft or business. and such an act will he
euIoined. The evidence in reference TO dam
ages Is SO indefinite that shall not award any
damages"