The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-07-01
z bLOK Az poYoorTYNa.


A BLOW Ar BOY00TTTNG.
The Supreme Court Of the State Of Penn
sylvania has recently affirmed o decision
of the lower court which enjoined q oon-
spiraoy by q labor. union 20 destroy the
business Of O firm refusing to accede TO liz
demands and which further assessed
damages In tho sum Of si,71o against the
union for its unlawful acts. The title OF
the case IL Purvfs OF al, plaintiffs, against
Local No. 800, United Brotherhood Of Car
penters and ~joiners, ct al, DESCENDANTS.
II appears that on the failure Of the
PLAINTIFF to ~uniouize their mill Local 10.
800 aud the Dist ict Council attempted 70
gain this result by any and every means In
their power, both In the ptttsburg district
and in the homo community Of Butler. The
members Of Local No. 800 who wero found
working material from this mill were
ooerced into quitting work on pain Of trial,
fine or expulsion. BY the Same power
owners, former customers and contractors
were compelled to withhold their patronage
from the plaintiffs, and at the same time q
successful effort was made TO deter tho
general public from placing orders with
the plaintiffs.
Joseph L. Purvis, one Of the plaintiffs,
testified that n Lewis, q business agent
Of the District Council, came with others
to the plaintiffs' place Of business to urge
upon them that they unioniSe the mill.
Purvis after elaboration showed Lewis
that the change would not be practicable.
Lewis ~thereupon told him that he would
have to stop doing business In Pittsburg.
NIaaO nkhn, .trntIaA kL~>aka v,ASA S,aaAA "a
the firm by representatives OF the union.
At the time the firm had q $40 900 contract
to furnish building material for q P~ittsburg
contractor. Pressure was brought In vain
on the contractor as well. Then the union
men employed by the contractor to put
the work together before removing 10 from
the PLAINTIFF warehouse in Butler were
called Of at q time when the building mate
rial was urgently needed by the contractor
TO complete his contract.
One Of the specific findings Of conspiracy
by the lower court is typical Of the rest and
10 as follows.
-The Central Hotel In Butler had been partially
destroyed by hro and was being repaired under
the supervision Of Edward weiRand. o building
contractor. VINO. under instructions from Mr.. Nixon.
the owner. was ordering the material 40 needed
sN'a NV b8@&shs 80 "Ss- ~"
owner was anxious 70 utilize the building. The
union men on Mo building were called on and were
not permitted 70 resume work unui M. Nixon
entered into an aEreoinsnt with the business Agent
Of Local No. 800, ooerman. beArins date January
0, 1904, that no material delivered after January g.
1904 coming from 8. q. Purvis d Co.. shah b.
used on the Central Hotel until said mill 70 operated
according 10 union rules"
The officers OF the union further admitted
having come TO the tovn Of Butler prepared
to drive Purvis d Co. into tho union They
further stated that they had at that time
Sufficient leverage" to enable them to zee
that 1t was done. This they followed up
with a circular letter to the effect that
members Of the United Brotherhood OF
Carpenters and Joiners would not handle
mill work or materials coming from mills
which failed to comply with the regulations
Of the c~arpenters' District Council and
that Purvis q Co. had failed TO comply
Association Of Western Pennsylvania with
the Carpenters District Council.
The attorneys for the labor unions at
tempted On appeal to befog the issue by
stating that the question involved In the
case was briefly this: Is the dissemination
by means Of prn..9d. notices by q lawfully
constituted lodge Of union laborers to its
members and employers Of labor Of ito
adopted rules by virtue Of its constitution
forbidding It's members to work %non-union
material an unlawful oonspiraoy7 Judge
Brown, speaking for a united Supreme
Court, declares that the zeal Of counsel may
account for but can hardly excuse % fla
grant q ~misstatement. The real question,
says Judge Brown, as the unlawfulness OF
the conspiracy Of the appellants to inJure
and destroy the property Of others, II their
demands as to the employment OF work
mel are not complied with. The
appellants contend that they seek only to
persuade and not to coerce; but their means
Of persuasion are the destruction Of the
property Of those whom they would per-
suade. Az we'll might II be said that the
sight Of the club or gun Of the highwayman
without actual violence simply ~persuades.'
After demolishing this variant OF the
peaceful pickehng defence employed 30
frequently In cases Of this character, the
court reviews the law Of illegal combine
tions and conspiraoies resulting In the boy
colt, severely SCORES such methods Of TIM
fair competition and coercion and makes
this final summary and observation on the
facts at bar:
turning from a consideration Of the nature OF
the purpose OF the defendants. as Indicated by
their words and deeds, I desire briefly 10 consider
the means used 10 effect that purpose. On part OF
plaintiffs II 10 alleged that tho means used Arc d boy
colt Of their business. The defendants contend
that their methods wore Persuasive and werc not
accompanied with violence. threats or Intimidation.
No violence was used. nor docs any seem 70 have
been contemplated or threatened; but acts may
be coercive In character without threats or COM
missions OF violence or personal injury. When the
District Council with Its 7 900 members IN The Pitts
burg district gave notice to practically all the
building contractors OF that district that the plain
tits refused to run their mill in accordance with
union rules and calling Attention 70 the working
rule which forbids union voTkuen 10 work ma
tertal from any non union mill. the contractors
understood what the roaucss not 70 pAtroniss plain
tins MIL meant.
-when the members Of Local No. go VINO were
willingly working material nom .piainans' mil
we're visited by the business agent OF the union.
who called them OF. they doubtless know that II
meant trial. nne or expulsion and o~stracisrn II they
continued to work. When the owner Of the Gen.
tral Hotel WA required, IN the urgency Of his s.ua-
tion. 70 sign . contract with the business AGENT OF
tho union not TO purchase any more material nom
plaintiffs as tho condition OF having work con-
tinued on his building II can scaroely Be said that
his freedom Of action was not interfered with:
when the business agents Of the District Council