The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1903-02-07

duu uenooIS vi bue ENTERPRISE ASSO-
citation. Here is an extract from
Judge Parker's reasoning;
"If aH organization strikes to help
its members the strike is lawful. II
its purpose be merely to injure non-
members, it is unlawful. If the or
ganizatlon notifies the employer that
its members will not work with nom
members, and its real object is to
benefit the organization and secure
employment for its members, it is
lawful If its sole purpose be to pre-
vent nou-members from working,
then it is unlawful. | do not assent
to this proposition, although there is
authority for IT,. 1t seems to me illog-
ical and little short of absurd to say
that the everyday acts Of the busi-
ness world apparently within the
domain Of competition, may be either
lawful or unlawful, according to the
motive of the actor Within all the
authorities upholding the principle of
competition, If the motive be to de-
stroy anothers business 10 order to
secure business for yourself the mo-
tive is good, but, according to a few
recent authorities, if you do not need
the business, or do not use it, then
the motive is bad; and some court
may say to jury, who are generally
the triers of fact, that given act Of
competition which destroyed A. S
business was legal If the act was
prompted by a desire on the part Of
the defendant to secure fOr himself
the benefit of it, but ilegalif its pur-
pose was to destroy A s business in
revenge for an insult given.
"The defendant associations, as ap.
pears from the findings quoted. want.
ed to put their men in the place OF
certain men at work, who were non,
members working for smaller pay, and
they set about doing it in perfectly
lawful way They determined that
If it were necessary they would beal
the burden and expense Of strike to
accomplish the result. and in so de.
termining they were clearly within
their rights, as all agree. They could
have gone upon a strike without
offering any explanation until the
contractors should have come in dis
tress to the officers Of the association
asking the reason for the strike
Then after explanation, the non
memb'rS would have been discharged
and the men of the defendant assO
citation sent back to work. Instead O.
taking that course. they chose to in
form the ntractors Of their deter
mnation and the reason for it
> Having the right to insist that tn
plaintiff's S men be discharged and de
fendant's men be put in their place
: II the services OF the other member,
Of the organic ltion were to be retain
ed, they also had the right to threat
en- that none of their men would stay
unless tteir members could have al
the work there was to do
"a man has the right under th
law to start store and to sell a
such reduced prices that he is able /
short time to drive the other store
keepers 10 his vincinity out of bust
ness, when, having possession of th
: trade, he finds himself soon able I
recover the loss sustained while ruiz
ing the others. Such has been th
law for centuries. The reason 0
course is that the doctrine has gene
ally been accepted that free competl
: tion is worth more thal it costs, an
that, on this ground, the infliction
damages is privileged.
"Nor ciuld this storekeeper be pr
vented from carrying out his scnem
u because, instead OF hiding his purpos
al he openly declared TO those stor
B. keepers that he intended TO driy
~ them out of business 10 order that b
, mighthter profit thereby. Nor wOu
y it avail such storekeepers in the ever
Ie OF there bringing an action to restra
In him from accomplishing their ruin |
re underselling them, TO persuade Il
trial court tn characterize the mott
cation as threat, for on Tevie
the answer would be- A man mi
TO threaten to do that which the la
10 says he may do, provided that with
is tie rules laid down in thnse cases, h
mutivr /. to help himself A lab
o orSnniz uinn is endowed with precis
as the same legaI rlShr as is an ind
ic ydna' tn nthrealen to do that which