New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-04-22
NEW BOYCOTT TEST CASE.
TO BE TRIED IN NEW-YORK
La7cyerS Say No Precedent Has
Been Established Here.

The decision Of the court at New-Brunswick.
y. J., awarding to Dressler & Hollender, con-
tractors Of Perth Amboy. $500 against Will
lam Sellers, the walking delegate, and other
members Of the Bricklayers and Plasterers Pro-
tective Union of Perth Amboy, for damages re-
sulting from boycott. had n profound effect on
the contractors in this city yesterday. The
building contractors took a special interest in
the case. and talked it over Informally. Some
of the building contractors are in favor Of test
ing the boycott in the courts in this city, and
Charles L. Eidlitz. president Of the Building
Trades Employers Association, said to a Trlb-
une reporter yesterday that he thought it would
not be long before a test case in New-York in
which firm in the Electrical Contractors AS
sociation is interested. will come Up.
LAS a member of the Electrical Contractors
Association ] will take great interest in the
outcome" he said. Il believe in having a
precedent established here in order that we
know how we stand. AS far can see. the
New-Jersey union a plain. everyday. unln-
coTporated union. The same things as were
done by the New-Jersey union are being done in
New-York every day. Boycotting. when 1t Is
done with malicious intent, comes under the
conspiracy law of New-York State and as the
laws are based first plain common sense the
same conditions should produce the same results
in New-York as in New-Jersey. AS to boy
country
/. Latin Kellogg who represented the en-
ployers in the case which determined the un-
constitutionality of the penal part Of the Eight
Hour law said last evening that the case in the
New Brunswick courts never had its exact coun-
terpart IN New-Yorlc The only civil cases on
charges Of boycotting brought up in New-fork.
he said. were injunction proceedings, and IN
functions were granted where it shown that
I{~i-
As far as l know. there has been civil judg-
Incnt rendered here for money damages against
a labor union on account OF a strike or boycott.
There have been proceedings in equity TO re-
strain unions or their officers from malicious
acts tending to interfere with the carrying on
Of a legitimate business.
The reason I believe that civil actions aSe
not brought against labor unions for boycOtting
is that they are supposed to he irresponsible. II
was for this reason that at the settlement Of the
coal strike one Of the plans submitted for adj
iustment Of disputes the incorporation Of
all labor unions This the unions would not
agree to"
Charles Stecker. VINO has represented the
unions in several important cases in the courts.
said that q case exactly like the one I'm New
brunswick had never come UP in New-fork-
There has been no precedent established in
this State" lie added. every case of boycotting
being different from the others. and each being
tried on its own merits. The line which defines
when boycotting is legal and when IT is Illegal
is a very fine one. In the case OF the people
against Radi which came up I'm General Ses-
sions in this city in October 1900. It charged
that one OF the defendants at a labor meeting
said We must ruin the business OF the com
plainant 1t then moved, II was charged
that a committee be appointed TO take charge
OF the labor quarrel against the plaintiff. and
the COMMITTEES was appointed. 4 circular setting
forth certain alleged facts was then issued
against the complainant. ending il is charged.
with the words: Therefore we appeal to every
member. to every religious and Justly thinking
lerson 20 only buy goods from others II was
also alleged that posters were put UP 10 the
same effect
The law states that II two more persons
conspire TO prevent another from exercising 4
lawful calling by force. threats or Intimidation
each is guilty Of a misdemeanor. In this case
Judge Foster directed the jury to render a YER
dict Of not guilty He said that In his opinion
the conduct OF the defendants was open TO GER
tain criticism. and possibly 20 a prosecution
under other sections Of the Penal Code, but the
charge Of conspiracy was not made out. The
Court Of Appeals he said says that one may
refuse TO deal with firm because Of a belief
that It does give fair compensation for labor.
and NAV ask his friends TO do So and the con-
duct may do injury TO the public. without
thereby becoming illegal"
John J. Delany. Corporation Counsel did not
cave to discuss the boycott damage verdict !n
detail He said he believed that Justice Forts
point was well taken and that as measure OF
relief civil action for damages from such
bovcOtt would hold az we'll in New-York State
as In New-Jersey. He said that while he had
heard that some of the city work had been de-
layed by strikes, lockouts and boycotts' none
Of the heads OF departments had appealed to
his office for legal relief.
At the Builders and Traders Exchange In
Newark Yesterday the builders discussed the
verdict and the opinion delivered 10y Justice
Fort gave much satisfaction.
The Importance of the courts charge to the
Jury" "A lawyer said. lis it's plain and emphatic
rea ffirnaton of well settled principles OF the
law The Jurors verdict Is also important as
establishing a precedent / cannot how II
will avail a la Dor union TO appeal I'm the case.
for the higher courts will infaIlby sustain court
IL. ,tkn @