The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-04-18
LIMITS TO BOYCOTT
Pickets' Fields Of Operation Are
Greatly Restricted.
BY JUDGE LocHREN's RULING
The Case of Wong Guy Against the
Cooks Union-InjunctiOns
Served.

Pursuant to order of Judge Lochren OF
the federal court a. writ of temporary in
junction in the case of Wong Guy, pro-
prietor of the restaurant at ~ Washing
ton avenue S, was issued this morning.
Yesterday United States Marshal Grim
shaw was engaged in serving copies.
The writ begins thus:
The president of the United States to W.
T. Clifford, Joseph Westfall, George Kriphaul
and various and sundry other persons whose
names are to your orator unknown, who are
associated together In an unincorporated as
sociation known as the minneapolis Cooks
Protective and Benevolent Association" in
the bill more particularly mentioned and de-
| scribed, and sundry and various other per-
| sons whose names are unknown, agents and
employees of the Minneapolis Cooks Protec-
| tive and Benevolent Association, and each of
| them, their agents, confederates and employees.
The order restraints the persons named
! from further combining and conspiring to
| destroy the business of the complainant;
from gathering and lettering in and about
| the premises or in the vicinity upon
1 either side of Washington avenue between
| Nicollet and First avenue S, and upon
! the alley running between Washington
1 and Second street, or upon Second street
4 within twenty feet of the alley entrance:
from standing at these points to distrib-
ute cards or printed circulars as speci-
fed in the complaint, or any similar
thereto; from persuading or lettering
persons from entering the place Of bust
!, ness; from authorizing agents SO to do;
from interfering in the named territory
1 with persons who manifest the intention
of entering the place of business as GUS
toner or otherwise for purposes of dis
1 suasion; from interfering with persons
j employed by the complainant or persuad-
ing them to leave his employ
Judge Lcchren's Ruling.
| In rendering his decision yesterday
| Judge Lochren said
The acts complained of are that the de-
PENDANTS have been engaged for several days
in picketing or bes!eging the doors of the
restaurant by persons In their employ and
persuading persons intending to be customers
from going into the restaurant, keeping away
customers, interfering with the employees OF
the complainant and threatening to boycott
purveyOrs who supply the necessary food Ice
and other materia: required in complainant
business. And it. is admitted on the part o.
the defendants that a portion Of this has beer
done, that they have employed persons to re
main at the door of the restaurant especially
during the hours of mealtme, in the morn
ing, at noon and in the evening, and tina
they were employed to distribute these card
especially to persons going into the restau
rant and to endeavor to keep persons from go
ing into the restaurant, and It is admitted
) that the object to destroy the business
of the complainant and drive him out O
business, it being claimed that it Interfere
with the interests of the defendants in con
nection with business of like kind, that tn
Chinese were not American citizens and Wer
here only temporarily, and that they az 81
deavoring to engross the business of W - i
called in the answer "popular-prced re. a,l
rants" which understand to be cheap res
} taurants, by reason Of their willingness t
: work at lower wages; that they will, unles
, interfered with, succeed in obtaining contrc
: of that kind of restaurant in the city and in
' terfere with the business Of the defendant
by so doing, and they claim that the act
done by them were not unlawful and wer
: such as they had a right to do. and attemI
, to justify them. The question is whethe
, those acts were justifable, whether such r
/ reference with a mans business can be to-
: Grated. OF course, we all understand tins
v civilization is based on the admittedly ju:
: idea that every person is entitled to be secu,
n in respect to lis life, liberty and propert.
with the right to accumulate property by tt
: lawful ,exertion Of his physical and ment;
n powers And governments are instituted an
. maintained, primarily, to conserve and pr
"a tect these admitted personal rights.
II Rights OF Com lN 1n8nt.
2 The question is as to whether, to prote
a the rights of this companant-and his righ
in respect to his business are as extensive
the rights Of any one else-he is entitled, G
the showing, to the injunction asked II
fact that he is a Chinese subject gives hi
as good right to conduct lawful, peace
. able business while he is permitted to renal
in this country, as any American citizen ha
There is no distinction made between TO
2 egners and citizens in respect to their RICH
4 to life, liberty and property The right
absolute to enter into and conduct any kir
2 of business and be protected in it. So +,
Z as appears, this business is being conductt
s in an orderly, quiet and lawful manner. I'll
e allegation that unless he is interfered vii
" in this way, The and others carrying on Il
If same kind of business will monopolize Il
business of that particular class of restal
rants does not allege or intimate any unlay
full acts either. done or threatened, but sir
ply that, because the Chinese will work I
in lower wages, he can conduct his busine
L. more economically than others who would
ID his competitors, and will succeed by tn
g. means in driving them out of the bushes
y, No unlawful act on his part are suggeste
r. so there seems to be no lawful excuse
Id any interference with his business, and t
~ question Is whether this interference, as I
o. as it Is admitted even by the answer, is
u unlawful Interference sending men to bessie
I'd the doors OF the restaurant; for the answ
OF admits that they go Within three feet Of t
~ doors and there stop persons about to emit
give them cards advising them and trying