The San Francisco call., 1905-06-23
SAYS BOYCOTT
IS UNLAWFUL
U. S. Circuit Judge Morrow
Restraints Labor Unions
From Injuring Business
STRIKES HAVE LIMIT
Employees Have No Right
to Injure Property for
Any Purpose Whatever

United States Circuit Judge Morrow
day granting a temporary injunction re-
straining certain labor organizations from
continuing the boycott against Dietrich &
Loewe. and Martin Fuchs. hat manu-
facturers of Danbury, Conn. The case is
that of the merchants named against
the California State Federation of Labor,
the San Francisco Labor Council and the
building Trades Council of San Fran
cisco The Building Trades Council was
exempted from the. order, as 1t had been
shown that that organization had not
taken any part in the boycott.
In rendering his opinion Judge Morrow
said that the bill was supported by afh-
davits from which it appears that Trieste
&. Co was San Francisco hat Jobbing
firm, handling among others the goods
of Dietrich G. Loewe, and that the defend
ants had boycotted these hats and had
sent circulars broadcast throughout Cali
fornia, Washington and Oregon declar-
ing Dietrich & Lowe and Trieste & Co.
unfair.
OBJECT TO CONTRACTS.
1t appears also that they demanded that
Trieste & Co. should cancel their con-
tracts with Dietrich & Loewe and stated
that the United Hatters of North Amer
lea mad ylbU,UUU at Ln6lI QlSPOSdi Will
which to break UP Dietrich & Loewe and
Trieste & Co. even If 1t should require
years to accomplish the work.
The opinion continues:
The defendants contend that it does not ap-
pear that any force threat or inttmidationS
boycott; that all that. has been done has been
to urge upon friends of labor to use their pat
ronage for the benefit of labor; that they had
a constitutional right TO do this; either oy
publishing their views the subject or by
communicating them orally TO their friends
But it can be truthfuiiy said that this is all
that has been done by them In enforcing the
boycott? Are they, not doing something more. I
their sentiments? Are they not using the
power of their combined numbers. acting in
concert TO drive companants out of business
and destroy their property unless they are Will
ing 70 surrender the control and management
of t!-er business to the labor organizations? !?
Are they not acting in combination for the di-
rect and immediate purpose of injuring the
complainants in their business and property?
II these questions must be answered in the af-
hrmative--and upon the facts before the court
they cannot be answered otherwise what fol-
lows?
ACTS ARE UNLAWFUL.
The weight of authority is that these acts
are unlawful and may be restrained by fnjunc-
ton.
A large number of authorities were re-
viewed by Judge Morrow, and in com
menting upon one Of them he said:
All the employees had right to quit their
employment but they had no right to combine
to quit in order thereby to compel their en-
plpyer to Withdraw from a mutually prontabie
njiring that third person when the relation
thus sought to be broken had no effect what
ever upon the character or reward of their
services =
1t follows that the complainants are enti-
tied to a temporary injunction against all the
defendants, excepting the Building Trades
Council of San Francisco. which. it appears
4 ~, fsNx, nr,1n
or conspiracy with the other defendants TO in
jure complainants in their business.