The San Francisco call., 1906-09-08
EDITED BY o. M. BOYLE.

/ 8
4 employees on the ground that they are
members Of labor unions. The test
case is TO be based on affidavits filed
with the Department of Justice from
I Kentucky Alabama and Tennessee. to
the effect that the law has been vio-
lated in number ef cases by 8
4 Southern road The case will, OF
] course, be fought to the highest court
T! by the railroad, the constitutionality
/ or the act being attacked. The law
was passed in 1898 but the present
4 case is the first which has been brought
under its provisions.
The Following is taken from the
Biblist In the Weekly Bulletin of the
Clothing Trades And when it came
to pass that after he had advertised
his stock of union label goods there
came unto him great multitudes from
all the regions round about and did
buy of him. And when his competi-
tors saw 1t they maryeled among them
selves, saying: How be 1t that this
man is busy while we loaf idly in
unto them, saying: In this age of de-
mand for union label goods it is easier
for camel TO enter the eye of q
needle than for a man to flourish with
out handling the union label product -
Inc ZoO girl operatives or the Con-
tinental Paper Bag Company of New
York, who understood that they had
! been granted an increase OF 25 cents
a day for which they recently struck
went out again when they found they
were not to get their demands, and
/ the mills at Rumford Falls, Me. are
/ shut down 1t seems that the girls
misunderstood the situation and dis
covered that instead of an advance OF
%kexr 70 Iox IN
! crease of only 81.
The right of labor unions and their
sympathizers to call on their friends
! to withhold patronage from non
union tradesman has been declared le-
/ gal by Justice STAFFORD in the District
1 Supreme Court of Washington, d. C.
In making this decision Justice Stat
ford dismissed the temporary injunc-
/ ton against the Bakery and Confec-
/ tionery Workers International Union
which had been obtained by a baker
who alleged that he was being harassed
+ by means of a systematic boycott, and
F that many Of his customers had been
asked to trade elsewhere. The princi-
PIE at stake the Justice suggested, was
1 the right of individual liberty. On this
point the Judge says:
ct is such a principle that the plain
/ tif invokes and it is upon such q
principle that the defendants rely for
their defense. The plaintiff has a
right to conduct his business in his
+ own way without coercion, without in
/ timidation. exactly as he shall con-
clude it is his own interest to act. The
/ defendants jointly and severally are
entitled to the same privilege. They
have q right 20 sell their labor TO
I whom they will and withhold 1t from
whom they viii. They have right to
patronize whom they will and to with
hold their patronage from whom they
will. It seems to the court that they
have a right to call on their friends
and sympathizers TO withhold their
patronage from one who refuses to
employ them, their friends and SYM
pathizers being left free to answer the
appeal as they believe their own in
terests dictate. So long as all parties
concerned are left free to follow their
own choice as they decide their self
interest dictates, it seems to the court
that there has been no infringement
upon the personal liberty of any one"
/ The defendants, according to the
opinion, admit a combination, but do
not divulge its purpose. No other ra-
/ tional explanation of the conduct OF
! the defendants can be found, the court
suggests, than that they have COM
bined to demonstrate to the plaintiff
that ne cannot conduct profitable
business with non-u union help, and
thereby compel him to employ union
men. Such a combination is held to be
lawful and the Judge cites the follow
ing example:
IF one manufactures certain brand
of -four 1T will be for his interest to
convince dealers in -four that they can
not AFFORD to be without his brand. 1t
might even be for his interest 20 con-
vince the dealers in -four that they
could not afford to handle any other
brand. II he could persuade all con-
sumers of -four to buy only his brand
he could compel dealers to buy only
his brand, however much the dealers
might prefer TO sell some other brand"
What is lawful for one person is not
made unlawful when adopted by a
number of persons or an association
representing a number of individuals.
Thus il is shown, the court points out,
that men are constantly compelled to
do what they do not wish TO do, and
what they have perfect right to re-
fuse to do, because they find they can
rot otherwise conduct their business
with profit.
San Francisco Lodge No. SO. Brother
hood of Railway Clerks. will meet this
evening at o'clock at Improvement
Hall, 1869 Market street. Railway
clerks are cordially invited to attend