The San Francisco call., 1905-08-03
VICTORY GAINED
FOR OPEN SHOP
Judge Murasky Perpetually
EnjOins the Walters and
Cooks From Picketing
HOLDS II is UNLAWFUL
Says Such Action Might Be-
come Most Serious and
Potent Private Nuisance

:; The Cooks and Walters Union have
lost their fight against the open shop
system agreed upon by the allied reStau-
rant keepers An order was issued yes
tercay by Judge Murasky perpetually re-
Rtrsining the cooks and walters and all
others that may be in league with them
Eou placing pickets IN front OF estab-
? lishrnents against which they have de-
cl2red boycottz-
=. The court holds that while the defend
ants have the right TO Quit their employ
nsot whenever they see 1T, they have no
right 10 parade the streets n an effort 10
in1ure the business Of any man This.
says the court, is al unlawful use OF the
public rhOC0ughfares- and the law viii
reach out 70 stop forever what might
constitute a most serious and potent pri-
Vate nuisance" Judge Nurasky's opinion.
which was reached IN the case Of -hosta
against the Cooks and Walters Union et
81, follows
Though the argument OF counsel was ex-
hsusrVe, and deserved an elaborate review
q tl-s authorities cited an not enabled TO
Go more at this time than set down the con
clusions which follow from an examination
o. the many eases. and g consideration OF the
principles t5uching the questions involved in
Ihis hearing. namely the right OF cefendsnts
to picket The establishment Of plaintiffs.
Missile nay b carried
RIGHT TO COMBINE
First-The right OF a number Of employees
20 combine for their own 'betrerment and in
e,-,-+be-s-re ~ rEss- r,u.--ose 70 ou3t work
II 6 body. and the right OF others 70 take and
hold without moleststion the places so vacated
- IS established beyond question The employe,
not under contract Ior q definite period. may
leave his employment for any reason or with
out reason, and the employer may discharge
Gach errploye- at his pleasure
Secorl--T-loss who have Suit work may seek
81 induce. those who have taken their places
= aoancen t2elr employment proNloep no
coercion. threats. intimidation, violence or any
similar influence which might operate against
the exercise Of an unTamrneled voHtion be
.ThIrd-whne employees have q right to quit
v,rll silgIy or in a body. with or without
cause, ard IL the Advancement OF their in
-feres-s 70 ask Others TO DO the same equity
viii protect the employer against malevolent
c1-sriracy 70 destroy his property, and any
cr-utinsr!oa which has for its purpose the de-
etructicn or his business by preventing its
Cterst10r through the intimidation Of those
" ao des- With or work for him may be en-
.70ur,h-vvhile the individual, or q combina-
q IN OF fldividUals, has the right TO abstain
from patroniziug, or working for, any person,
TIE threat os boycott against others who
usy Zeal witk such person, N order TO com
~ sn-. Iatronizing working for such person,
is a -srecies ~ intimidation.
Ti-th-Iu using the streets in the vicinity
cf employers establishment, employees,
whether members Of a union or otherwise have
Eas and are bound By the same restrictions
TO quote from Mills vs. L. s. Printing Co.,
81 y y. s. lS5, in language which clearly ex-
presses the law upon the subject:
RIGHTS OF WAYFARERS.
9 "A p-ayfarer upon the public streets should
be free -fo- peaceful travel No man against
nay. win has the legal right 20 occupy the
puhllt street TO arrest my course TO join
f1e On nay way. be he 50 polite OF gentle
in his llsisteuce. There may be intimids-
tiou. and set an interruption Of peaceful
travel TheFe may be annoyance without
danger
si1th-Defendants haye the right to use their
eyes and ears and voices upon the public
there IS would any other person. They may
observe, as may any one else, and in the
sa-us manner. But the maintenance OF any
obstruction n front Of in the vicinity OF
plaintiffs establishment for the purpose Of
working him injury; the establishment CT
systematic patrol in the neighborhood OF
his premises, the stationing Of picket with
g. badge or device or bearing banner IN front
Of or near DTaintids store with a view to in
1ure ais business, or which has such result, is
not such a Use Of the streets generally as is
permitted by law TO any one, for Il may be
" lat Is oenominateo BY the Law private
Nuisance
p Whether. as a fact # is 9 nuisance depends
upon the circumstances OF each case The
presence OF many men outside the walls OF a
large factory might not be any disturbances
q any ones peace, or any annoyance, OF any
nuisance, while. the constant presence of one
man advertising his purpose outside the door
o. a retaf store g restaurant might con-
Eutute e most serious and potent private nui-
sance, as the term Is understood in law
Let an order be drawn IN accordance with
the views above expressed.