The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-14
UNIONS SUSTAINED
Court in Case Of State v.
Van PeIt Finds for
Defense.

business Of a lumber merchant on
whom they had ma le demand that he
refrain from employing other than
union labor on pain of being consid-
cred out of sympathy with of%anlzed
labor and whom they had published
after his refusal To comply as having
been placed on the unfair list with
the accompanying advice that no
member of the union or Of any branch
of organized labor should handle the
product ofs2ais business. was yesterday
decided by the Supreme Court in IA
vor Of the men indicted. who were the
appelles in the case before the ST.
preme Court.
1t will be remembered that on the
hearing in the court below the de-
fendanIs oemurred to the bill OF par
ticulars furnished by the State and
were sustained. the Judge quashing the
Indictment. In Yesterdays decision the
lower court was therefore affirmed
The opinion. which is very extern
sive and full in treatment was written
BY Associate Justice oCnnor. Affect
ing as il does the rights OF organized
labor to enforce its demands by in
tluencing others rot to deal with a.
employer of labor who has incurred
the dispieaSure of the unions, It will
be seen that the case is one OF the
greatest Importance, which is increas-
ed when it is onSidered that the court
is unanimous in It's decision and that
the opinion was -ritten onlv after
long consideration in every aspect Of
the case.
Briefly, the court holds that q con-
spiracy to inillre ones business is nos
per Sc indictable. 1t is only when the
means used to accomplish the enc
are unlawful that it becomes so. In
the particular instance the court finds
that as there was no intimidation used
and no suggestion of violence to at
talu their ends that the defendants
were within their rights TO consider
the employer out of sympathy with
their organization by reason of the
fact that he empioved union labor ana
in publishing the fact and advising that
members OF organized labor should
rot work material from his factory.
Since organized labor and labor organ
iE2tions are not unlawful. they are 10
b treated as an individual. The en-
pioyer is not TO be deprived Of any le-
gal rights fer a refusal TO employ I'M
iCl, :9cn exclusively and the defendants
have an equal right to consider Dir.
out of sympathy with them if he makes
such refusal. There is no charge that
the defendants intended 10 compel the
employer to d discharge communion men.
AS TO the contention that the intent Of
the men under liz 1icGmeut was Z mat
ter fer sbe jury. the court disposes of
that by saying that by demurrer the
defendants had admitted their purpose.
The question was whether they were
in their rights in doing what they Id
IL what they did was lawful, the publ
cation was lawful. \ labor orGaniza-
ton may, IS an individual thorateu
10 Go what it has a right to do. Per
sons who might wish to purchase ma
terial OF the prosecutor had no legal
right to the services of the defendants
or these whom they might influence
not to work Of the employer whom
they considered was not in sympathy
with their interests: hence the mere
advice TO labor not to work such ma
terial was not unlawful. 1t was not
material whether or not IN act that
was not unlawful was done with ma
licious intent.
Other Cases and Opinions.
Other cases argued yesterday and
opinions handed down other than the
above and the Selma Connection -
case, were rs follows:
Appeals from teti, District
State Y. Gentry, argued by Attorney
General FOR State: Ben Posey for de-
PENDANT.
Coward V. Commissioners. argued
by Moore for plaintiff; Cowan fortde~
PENDANT.
Board of Education " Commission
Horn 6, Mann for defendant.
Stalcup V. Stalcup, argued by Nor
veil and Posey for plaintiff; Ray for
defendant.
Trotter v Angel, argued by Horn &
Mann for plaintiff: ]. f. Ray, Robert
son & Benbow and Jones & Johnston
for defendant.
Frances Y. Reeves. by Crawford for
plaintiff: Shuford for defendant
Rollins V Ebbs, by Moore q Rollins
for plaintiff; Crawford for defendant.
Wilson V. Lewis. by Walter e.
Moore for plaintiff; Ray for defend
ant.
herd for plaintiff: Ferguson for &c
PENDANT
The following State cases We're ar
gued at the end of the docket.
state v Morris. by Attorney Gen
eral for the State.
State v Spruill, by Attorney Cen
eral for State.
State Y. Huff by Attorney General
for State; Beckwith for defendant.
The following cases VIII be argued
STATE Y. Davis, Attorney General
for State; Mclean &c Mclean for de-
state '. Smith, by Attorney General
for the state
COMMONS were ite~iahSA 49, = ~N'N~-
dav as follows:
Beaver Y DeaVer, from ouifcoiiioe'
new trial.
combe: no error.
Harris Y. quarry Co, from Hen
derson; reversed.
Barker T. Railroad. from Hender-
son; affirmed
error.
Plnchbaelz v Mining Co, from
CASTOR. new trial.
Goodwin Y. Clayton from Forsyth
reserved.
Hall Misenheimer. from Rowan;
no error.
Walker V. Railroad, from Alamanee
affirmed
Holms Y. Holms. from Union; pc
titon to rehaar dismissed
State Y Bell, from Lenoir; no err
Ier.
Anna Griffin " S. A. L. Railway
fToEn Anson: petition for certiorari
denied and judgment below affirmed.
per curiam.
Mclean VS.. Bullard, from Scotland
per curiam affirmed
1t fr.rN..