The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-07-23
Free Labor in Illinois.


The decision of the Supreme Court Of
the State Of Illinois just handed down
in the case of JOHN O'BRIEN rs. People
Ell REL Kellogg Switchboard and Supply
Company is the third announcement
within month OF the attitude of the
judiciary Of our more important States
toward labor unions. New York State, in
the Stearns case, recently commented
upon in these columns, and Massachu-
sets, in the Donovan case, have already
taken their stand in favor of the freedom
of labor.
The case had been pending for more
than two years. In May, 1908, the corpo-
ration filed bill for an injunction against
the representatives Of labor union. The
bill alleged in part that it employed sew
eral hundred men and girls, had invested
$500, 900 in a plant that it had in its en-
ploy large number of mechanics who
were members of various labor unions
with local lodges in Chicago and it also
had large number Of skilled mechanics
who were not associated or affiliated
with any union; that large majority OF
it's employees were well satisfied with
their wages and salaries paid, the hours
of service and the general conditions Of
their employment, vat Notwithstanding
such facts the defendants wrongfully
and malicio,sly called strike and forced
all of it's employees who were members OF
the unions to cease work.
Before calling out the men, however,
delegates from the International Brother
hood of Electrical Workers, International
Association Of Machinists, Brass Work.
ers' Union, and Brass Molders' Local,
attempted to coerce the corporation
into signing an agreement contain
ing number OF unreasonable de-
mands including one for the dis
charge OF all non-union employees.
The demands were resisted and strike
was called. The strikers then instituted
the usual system of picketing, resorting
to various forms Of intimidation to pre-
vent on-union men from working. A
preliminary injunction against this
abuse was obtained in the lower court,
affirmed on appeal, and printed notice
of it's terms posted in conspicuous places
around the factory buildings. The In
junction was violated and a number Of
piokets were fined. In spite Of these fines
the outrages became constantly more fla
grant and were persisted in not only by
those originally fined but by their COM
rades. The fines were raised from $40
to 500, and many strikers were sent to
Jail for terms varying from ten to sixty
days.
The strikers, just as in the New York
case attempted in vain to cloud the real
issue by interposing mass Of technical
objections, including the one that these
particular strikers were not served per-
sonally with the injunction order. Judge
WILKIN, in a very long opinion in which
he reviews the authorities, says:
-No person or combination Of persons can legally
by direct indirect means, obstruct or interfere
with another In the conduct Of his lawful business
and any attempt TO compel an individual. arm or
corporation TO execute on agreement TO conduct
his or its business through certain agencies or by
q particular class OF employees Is not only unaw
full and actonable. but Is interference with tine
highest civil right. Thus We said In DoRHNUs e..
HzNSEssHY. I7e H., COS on page Ga: The common
law seeks protect every person against the wrong
full acts Of others. whether committed alone or by
combination. and an action may be had for Injuries
done which cause another loss In the enjoyment of
any right or privilege OF property. Every
man has right. under the law. as between himself
and Others 70 full freedom In disposinr OF his own
labor or capital according to his own will, and any
ono who invadcs that right without lawful cause
or justification commits legal wrong. and II fol-
lowed by an injury caused In consequence thereof
the one whose right Is thus Invaded has a legal
ground Of action for such wrong. Damage inflicted
by fraud or Misrepresentation, or by the use OF
| intimidation, obstruction or molestation, with
malicious motives. Is without excuse and action i
able. Competition In trade. business or occupation,
though resulting In loss, will not DO restricted or
discouraged. whether concerning property or per.
sonal services. Nor would competition OF
ono set of men against another set carried on for
the purpose Of gain, the extent Of intending
to drive from business that other set and actually
accomplishing that result, DO sctionsbie unless
| there was actual malice
The Judge after referring to the lead
ing cases In England and In the various
! states Of tho Union, as set forth In thu