The San Francisco call., 1905-06-29
CASE
IS CON T|NUED
Judge Murasky Sets the Ci-
tation Against Labor Coun-
Gil for Hearing To-Day
KOSTA'S SUIT rs ARGUED
Attorney T. C. Van Ness
Points Out the Line Where
Rights of the Unions End

Proceedings in contempt against the
San Francisco Labor Council and the va
rious unions Of brewery workers, against
| whom citation was issued upon affidavit
OF the Seattle Mailing and Brewing
Company, was continued yesterday by
Judge Murasky until this morning for
hearing. The respondents were present
with their attorney, but the court de-
cided to first dispose of the petition for
injunction against the Cooks and the
Walters unions filed by A. ]. Kasta,
owner of restaurant at 81 Sixth street.
On behalf of the petitioners it was ad-
mitted that the cooks and the walters
had the right ito quit work If they so
| desired and to make a condition upon
which they would remain at work that
they be not required to work with non
union men, but there their rights ended
and they committed a breach Of the law
! the moment they instituted boycotts,
placed piclSets and endeavored to harass
and intimidate the employers.
Inc claim was made on behalf OF the
defendant unions that they had only
used peaceful means in an effort to at
tain their end. but this claim was met
by counter affidavits of the employer.
Upon this joinder of issues the argument
proceeded. T. c. an Ness, who repre-
sents the plaintiff and who is associated
with Attorney Bush Finnell in the pre-
sentation of the petitions for similar
lief filed by score of employers. first ad-
dressed the court.
FOLLOW ENGLISH CASE.
THE courts of America" said Mr.. Van
| Ness, ARE now advancing in cases in
volving the questions here raised along
the lines of tie rule laid down N Eng
lands highest court The first case that
ho i,,al 1aI fha
of the right of employees to cease their
labor in body, to strike, as it is COM
monty called. In that case the men had
quit their employment owing to the fact
that non-union men were given work be-
side them. AS they were persistent in
their stand that they would not return
until the non-unjon men were discharged
| the employers were finally forced to dis
charge the non-union men, the services
of the union men being the more valuable
The discharged employees carried the case
to the courts and upon this action the
opinion of the higher court was founded.
The court held that employees had the
right at any and all times to quit their
work and walk out in a body and that
they also had the right to say upon what
conditions they would remain in the en-
ploy of any person or firm; their right
| to even demand that non-union men be
! discharged as a condition upon which
they would remain at their work not
/ being questioned. In other words, en-
ployes, held the court. could place any
condition they desired upon their posi-
tions, and had the right to quit their
work If the conditions so imposed were
not honored in every way by the en-
ployers
GO BEYOND RIGHTS.
'Emboldened by this decision of the
highest court of their land the English
union members went further and finally,
when their demands as to the discharge
of non-union men and higher wages and
shorter hours We're not granted, they
proceeded with the boycott, placed pick
| cts and sought to intlmidate to attain
| their ends. This case was carried to the
upper court and here came the decision
! upon which the courts of America now
base theirs.
This decision was to the effect that
even though it were true that employees
| had the right to name any conditions
! they desired to even demand the dis
| charge of non-union men under threat
! of a walkout their rights ended in
event their demand was denied when
! they exercised their right to walk out
| After walking out they had done all
they could legally do, and the court
| firmly held that they had no right to
| boycott, to picket or to intmidate; they
might walk out as they pleased, but
there their legal right to injure ended.
This is the theory upon which we are
| proceeding in this case, continued Mr.
| Van Ness. I'VE do not for a moment
question the right of the cooks and the
walters to quit their employment at any
time or for any reason they please.
After they have quit, however, we hold
that there their rights end and that in
boycotting, picketing and intimidating
| others who have taken their place we
hold they violate the law and should be
! forever enjoined from pursuing such
tactics
MARBLE OUTLINES STAND.
i Attorney Marble who represents the
unions, said that while it was true that
pickets had been stationed in front of
! the restaurant OF the petitioner and
others they had committed no overt acts
| and had conducted themselves in q quiet,
/ peaceful manner.
! "Picketing, If quietly carried on. can
not be declared nuisance" said Marble.
! 1T cannot be declared a nuisance because
| people are stationed on the sidewalk, be-
cause 1t is a presumption of law and is a
fact capable of proof that people are
/ standing and passing up and down in
| front of restaurants on the public streets
/ at all hours"
But you will condede will you not"
asked Attorney Van Ness, that people
cannot combine to injure a persons
| business?'
What we concede.'' answered Mar
BILE, ''is that labor unions have no
right to combine to exercise unlawful
acts against the proprietors of places of
business. We hold that in the case at bar
the defendants were not exercising un-
lawful acts, but were fully within the
spirit of the letter of the law.
1T seems to me- answered Van Ness,
that the answer consists alone Of words;
it is not argument"
This concluded the discussion and the
case was taken under advisement