The San Francisco call., 1905-08-31
BEER BOYCOTT
CASE ARGUED
Judge Beatty Listens to the
Story of a Strike for
Wages and Recognition
UNLAWFUL ACTS DENIED
Attorney Eisner Contends
That an Injunction Will
Not Injure the Unions

The matter OF restraining the how
cotters OF the beer made by the Seat
tie Brewing and Mailing Company was
argued exhaustively yesterday before
United States District Judge James II.
Beatty OF Idaho in the United States
circuit Court Bush FinneL special
cosnsel for the Citizens Alliance. and
Milton S. Eisner appeared for the COM
piainant, and c. II. King and Emil
LESS for the defendant labor organiza-
nons The defendants in the case are
Peter Hanson, the San Francisco Labor
Council, International Union United
Brewery Workmen OF America, Local
No 29S of the Pacific Coast Bottlers
international Union of United Brewery
Workmen Of America, Local 227 of the
Pacific Coast Drivers International
Union OF United Brewery Workmen.
Local No. Z. Pacific Coast Brewers
The complaint recites that on April
Is. 1908, the complainant's workmen at
Seattle went on strike on the demand
for higher wages and recognition of
the union. On May Is, it is alleged,
the defendants entered into a conspir-
acy 10 inJure the complainant's bust
ness by boycotting It and by intimid-
ating its patrons and employees. In pur-
suance OF this conspiracy, representa-
tives and agents Of the defendants fol-
lowed the delivery wagons of the COM
pIainants and distributed circulars de-
nouncing the beer as unfair and ''scab
beer" and as deleterious TO health.
These circulars also threatened Gus
toners Of the complainant with the
loss Of their business If they should
persist in purchasing and dealing in
the product of the complainant
To substantiate the allegations of
the complainant many afhdavits were
read, among them being those OF the
eleven drivers of John Rapp & Sons
delivery wagons in this city. They
swore that they had been forced to
strike, much against their desire. as
they had no complaint TO make regard
Ing wages or treatment; that they had
been informed by various persons con-
nected with the defendants that they
would be taking their lives in their
hands should they continue to drive
agons containing the product of the
complainant. Other affidavits told of
circulars denouncing the complainants
beer as unwholesome and intimating,
50 cOmplainants counsel contended,
that saloonmen, grocers and others
who handled il would suffer loss of the
patronage of persons belonging to and
in sympathy with the defendant unions.
Cameron II. King. for the defense,
denied that his clients had committed
Iue unldWlut acts cOmplalneO Or OF any
other unlawful acts. Milton S. EiSner,
for the complainant, argued that if
such were the fact the defense would
have nothing TO gain by contending
against the issuance of the injunction,
inasmuch as defendants would not be
affected by such an injunction He
argued that IL had been shown by affi
davits that such unlawful acts had
been committed by the defendants, and
suggested that the benefit of the doubt
should be given to the complainant,
since the injunction would work no
hardship upon, nor do any damage to
cle defendant, while IL would save the
complainant from great damage. The
complainant asks for $4,000 damages
and an injunction pending the case.
Judge Beatty took the matter under
sdvisement