Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1906-07-30
Opinion OF COURT
JUDGE IRWIN Makes INJUNCTION
OF STRIKERS Permanent
Sailors and L0ngShOremenS Unions
Are EnjOined by the Superior
Court Against interfering With
Others Who wish to Sail or
Load Ships.

Last I thursday, Judge Irwin handed
down an opinion in the case OF the Grays
Harbor Stevedoring Company vs.. the
Sailors and Longshoremen's Unions, in
which he made the temporary iniunc-
ton permanent. The following is the
opinion OF the court:
Plaintiffs allege that they are co.
partnership formei for the purpose OF
loading and unloading ships at the diff.
ferent cities OF Grays Harbor, and were
engaged in the pursuit of their said bust.
ne. s at the time they commenced this
action, and for some time prior thereto.
They also aleee that about thirty
days before the suit was commenced
disagreement arose between certain ship
owners of the Pacific Coast and the
Sailors Union OF the Pacific Coast, and
that the sailors located at Grays Harbor
and belonging to the Aberdeen branch
OF said union, went ont on what is COM
monty known as strike, and refused to
load or unload, or assist in loading or
unloading certain vessels belonging to
said ship owners. Plaintiffs also allege
that the Longshoremen' Union OF Aber-
deem entered upon strike in sympathy
with the sailors and that the two unions
and the individual members thereof
conspired together and entered into an
unlawful agreement for the purpose OF
monopolizing TIE business of loading
4 ...1o L., 4 r. L
and preventing these plaintiffs and all
other persons not affiliated with said
unions from engaging in the business OF
loading and unloading vessels; that by
reason OF the acts and conduct OF deien.
dants toward plaintiffs and their EN-.
poyes, they have been greatly an.
noyed, hindered and delayed in the pros
ecution OF their interests and have been
tnue to be SO damaged unless defen-
dants are restrained and enjoined from
unlawfully interfering with them.
The defendants in their answers deny
everything alleged by plaintiffs except
they admit that the two unions are
unions as alleged.
There is much conflict in the evidence
in the case, but after thoroughly con.
sidering all the evidence, it forces upon
me the conviction that the defendants
have very vunwarrantably interfered with
and hindered and delayed plaintiffs in
the prosecution of their business, and
were continuing to do so at the time this
action was commenced and the restrain.
ing order issued.
Plaintiffs witnesses testified with great
particularly and exactness as to specific
acts of violence committed by many of
the defendants upon the men employed
by plaintiffs, and also as to scurrilous
and approbrious epi hets addressed to
plaintiffs workmen, and by threatening
them in intimidating language, on ac-
count OF which conduct of defendants
some of plaintiffs employees actually quit
work, and many others were deferred
from entering the service OF plaintiffs at
all.
The testimony OF defendants was large
ly negative in character. 1t is true that
any particular defendant charged with
any specific act OF violence, using any
approbrious language or making any
threat, would deny that he had so done,
but the others who were present and
could have heard and seen what was
said and done, would merely state that
if any such thing occurred they did not
hear or see it.
Unquestionably it is the right and
privilege OF any man or body of men to
refuse to work for another, ii there is no
contract obligation to the contrary. 1t
is also the right Of working men to form !
unions, and no doubt much good is fire.
quently accomplished thereby, but
unions have no right, nor have the indi-
vidual members thereof any right to in.
terfere in any way with others in the
lawful and peaceful pursuit OF their bust.
ness. The joining OF union gives q
man no special legal right or privilege
not enjoyed by other persons, nor does it
deprive him OF any legal rights or priv.
ileges. The legal rights of non-union
men and union men ale exactly the
same, both must obey the law, and when
either OF them illegally interieres with
the other. they will be restrained and
enJoined whether they be members of
the union or not.
The evidence shows that the defend.
ants, Ii. L. Green and Emil Anderson,
are not members OF either union and
have not interfered with plaintiffs or