The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-02
JILL TEXT OF CHANCELLOR CARMICHAELS g DECISION
 W THE INJUNCTION CASE AGAINST THE STRIKERS

PupilSneQ snort report la5l week ol tne opinion and decree of Chancellor Car michael in the injunction cases involving he local machinists' and moulders strike. As this is the first case of the kind in Alabama, although similar cases have oeen decided in other states, and as the opinion discusses and lays rules of law interesting alike to employees. their labor organizations and the employers. of labor he full text of the decision and decree ,f the court in the case of the Birming- nam Machine and Foundry company, which was made to apply also to other similar cases, is published. It follows:
 Birmingham Machine and Foundry Com
 pany Vs. Nick Smith ct al.-No. 2SS7-
 In the Chancery Court of Jefferson
 County, Alabama
 This cause has been submitted, along with three others of the same general rature and character (wherein the liar die-Tynes company, the Caldwell company and J. A. Hood, respectively, are complainants), upon motion to mod- fly the injunction, in different particu- lars, specifying separately various words and clauses of the injunction, as we'll as upon a motion to dissolve the injunction entirely.
 Q similar, if, indeed, they are not identical, In character; and, for the purpose of this opinion. it will be sufficient to refer to the facts alleged In the bill filed by the Bir- mingham Machine and Foundry company as fairly illustrative of the case made by each of the several complainants. The allegations of the bill may be thus stated. In a condensed form
 That complainant is, and has been for mi chine shop and foundry at East Birming- ham 0known as an open shop) and em- poying machinists and holders satisfac- tory to it, whether they are members of a union or not; that on June IT, 1902 the business agent of Fidelity Lodge No. 2, International Association of Machinists, presented to 1t certain contract to be signed, into which 1t was unwilling to en- ter, and that he at once called out the union machinists on strike; that, to make the strike effective, they united upon a general plan of action with machnists or other shops, who were also out on strike, to coerce complainant to agree to thcfr terms and to prevent 1t from employing others than members of said union: that one of the prominent features of the CO., ercion was a system of picketing and pa- troling-"an organized espionage unon the works and upon those going to and from them"-which was at once begun and 2. scientifically continued up to the filing of the bl; that afterwards, in Septem- Der, 1902, those of it's molders who were members of Iron Holders Union No. 2Se, voluntarily left its service because 1t would not agree to the terms of and sign a contract with said union, and joined with the striking machinists in their plan of coercion and intimidation. The bill charges that certain named individuals and other members of each of said unions have conspired and confederated to- gether, and are still doing so, to prevent complainant from obtaining other em- ployes who are willing to work for it. On mutually satisfactory terms as mold CTS and machinists, and thereby either 10 break up the business of complainant or to compel it to conduct its business under the dietation of said unions and on their terms and to employ only members thereof thereby interfering with com plainants constitutional right Of contract, and that of other artisans who do not De- long to said orders or unions; in pursu- ance of which conspiracy, and to carry cut their common design, members of said unions have attempted to accomplish tLeir unlawful purposes by menaces, in- limitation and opprobriou5 names ad- al iessed to complalnant's workmen by gathering in crowds about complainant's s place of business, in the public streets contiguous thereto, and by following its workmen on the streets and applying op- probrious epithets to them. and by actual violence to the persons of some of them" whereby complainant has been deprived of the services of those who were willing to work and has been injured in it's busi- Eess; that, to protect its molders, com plainant had to arrange sleeping apart ments for them inside it's works, and that they rarely went out without the protec- ,fa1, lot mt ho1 employed at considerable expense to es- cort them to and from their boarding houses at meal time. In reference to picketing the bill alleges that the "sys- tematic picket consisted of from two to about ten men, beginning before work time in the morning and continuing until after ceasng work in the evening, the piclxets being most numerous morning, noon and night, when it's employees, in the ordinary course of business, would be entering or leaving the shop. The bill alleges that one of the objects of said picketing is to ascertain what is going on in complanant's works and who are working for complainant as holders and machinists, so that whenever any of their holders or machinists exercise the priv jlege of going into the business part of the city members of said union and their sympathizers may identify them and thus be able to intimidate or coerce them" Another object is alleged to be to annoy Its workmen by promises, threats, per- suasion and insulting language, and in- duce them to quit complainant's service.
 These general allegations are followed by eight sections of specifications, with names and dates, giving instances of a course of conduct towards its employees, of the character above described.
 The bill further alleges, that the wrongs complained of have inflicted, and will, unless restrained, continue to inflict, great damage to complainant, which will be ire parable, both because the law furnishes no standard to measure the loss of busi- ness and profits, and because the defend ants are, from insolvency unable to re- spond in damages.
 The defendants are the officers of the union and others who it is charged, have been most active in performing the acts complained of who are brought in as fairly representative of the whole class
 The injunction prayed for in the bill, which issued upon the filing thereof, is in line with the foregoing allegations, and re- strains the defendants, and others acting in concert with them from unlawfully interfering with the business of the com plaint from attempting to compel its employees, by threats, intimidation, force or violence, to leave its service or from preventing any person, by threats. intim- idation force or violence, from entering its service; and also from congregating or lettering near the premises of com plainant for the purpose of intimidating its employees or any of them. or inducing them to leave its service, or from pick stino ar na trolling it's works in the man.