The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1902-07-05

noted that the o krd s y 1ehed 4 ia
moderate ana unobj jecfi iolab1e language
with the possible exception of the word
''scab," which might have offended the
ears of union sympathizers as much as
It ft=aggravated :the-plainti4esfsz.z
The court finds that the men patroll-
ing the streets In front Of the plaintiff $
store did not use force, threats or inti-
midation Of any kind, and that, In the
only instance when there was any vio-
lence displayed; it was brought on by
the wrong doingeof.an employe of the
store. who was fined in municipal court.
The plaintiff. said the court, has a
constitutional right to conduct his bus
mess as he pleases, providing he does it
in a lawful way, and may hire such
men as he pleases, whether union or
non-union, has right to refuse to treat
with any union, and may keep his store
open as early or late as he chooses. II
there are any invasions of these rights
he will be afforded protection and
redress by the law.
But, says the court, the plaintiff has
no right to complain if those in SYM
pathy with the early closing movement
refuse to trade with him, nor if ar
guments are made to the public either
through the press or through the med
tum of public meetings that an early
closing movement is conducive to the
welfare Of a considerable portion Of the
community and that early closing hous-
es should be patronized.
Further the court said that upon the
motion for a temporary injunction, the
general scope Of the controversy was
suggested by the, following two ques-
tions:
1. Should an injunction issue merely
because the defendants patrol the street
in front of the plaintiffs store?
2. Should an injunction issue prohib-
iting the distribution of cards such as
the defendants used, and forbidding the
use Of persuasion and arguments in
favor of patronizing union stores and
against patronizing the plaintiffs store,
all being done in a peaceable manner? ?
The court held that the cases answer
ed the first question in the negative
that the patrolling OF streets is not in
itself unlawful. It is true that the
courts have repeatedly, and Justly en-
joined patrolling, but it has been in
cases where it created private nuis-
ance or prevented ingress and egress
to the store os was attended by acts
Of violence or by threats and intimida-
ton, but that nothing Of the nature is
suggested in this case.
The court expresses little hesitancy in
answering the second question in the
negative. The law recognizes the legal
ity of the labor organisations, the SON.
stitution gives every person the right
Of free speech and in some form and
to some extent the defendants have a
right to make themselves heard.
The law, said the court, also recog-
nizes such q. thing as an unlawful con-
spiracy to. injure one in his property
rights and combination so doing cam
not hide behind q claim of free speech.
The union has at all times the right to
argue for union stores and seek to in
duce the public to trade exclusively at
union stores, but it must at the same
time recognize, the right Of others to
conduct their business as they choose.
The court expressed a doubt whether
under the peculiar circumstances OF
this case, the union could be charged
with unla conspiracy to destroy
the PLAINTIFF business. no overt act
.of violence timid Il tion being shpwll.
#s1 n GioSln1 thSY court axain referred L