Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-30

fi'iiioii'S III ShtlilS iitcIn
from conducting their business in
their own1awful way. The iniunc-
ton also prevents the union from
compelling any of the complainants
to yield to the demands of the de-
PENDANTS touching the manner in
which business shall be conducted
by them.
The methds of interference interdicted by
the courts orders are any attempts to in
duce employees. under contract TO remain
In the service of the plaintiffs, to break
such contracts and leave their employment /
and any attempts to coerce any of their !
actual employees into leaving or any intend
ing employees not to enter the employ ment
of the plaintiffs.
The courts order requires the defendants
to refrain from the use OF opprobrious epi-
thets 10 employees of the compa inants;
from following them about the streets
against their VIII and request from per-
sistently surrounding, importuning and en-
treating them against their WILL from /
meeting and intercepting the employees on |
their way to and from their work for the
purpose of doing any of the things for
hidden by the courts ruling.
Large Attendance in Court.
News of the fact that the court would
decide the Typothetae case, as the injunc-
tion proceedings have come to be called.
had the effect of crowding the room of
Equity Court No. with lawyers employ
ing printers and strikers In the audience
was a friend of Justice Stafford, from St
Johnsburg, VT, who, happening to be pass
ing through the city, returning from visit
to Florida, desired to be present at the de-
livery of the opinion. The friend was ac-
companied by two ladies, who listened at
tentively while Justice Stafford announced
his decision.
Justice Stafford at the outset declared
that the opinion had been written in the .
language of the people rather than the
language OF the legal profession. The rea-
son assigned for the adoption of this course
was that the subject being OF interest 10
many who are unfamiliar with the terms of
law, might be better understood If technical
phrases were avoided.
The substance of the employers complaint
the court said is that when their workmen
left them on strike they employed and
brought in other workmen to take their
places. and would have been able TO carry
on their business successfully and perform
the contracts they had in hand if they had
not been interferred with by the defendants,
but that the defendants have interferred
with their business by inducing COM
pelling their new employees to quit their
service.
Continuing the court said: Some OF
these new employees. the employers say.
were under binding contracts to work for
stated periods so that they had no right
to quit when they did. Others of them.
the employers say. were not under binding
contracts to work for any stated period,
but would have continued to work il the
defendants had not annoyed, molested, and
in some instances threatened them to such
an extent that contrary to their own choice
and preference they left their employers
service.
The employers also complain that the
defendants have undertaken to interfere
with their business by representing to the
public, and especially to the employers
customers. that If they continue to patron
ize the employers, they will have difficulty
and annoyance in getting their work done,
and they complain that this representation
Is SO expressed as to constitute threat"
Pickets on the Street.
The court, commenting further, said that
the employers complain that the defendants
maintain pickets on the streets and In the
vicinity of their respective shops who meet
their workmen when they are on their way
to and from work and insist on talking
with them and attempting TO persuade them
to leave their jobs and join the union.
The employers also claim, the court said,
that In some cases such pickets or commit,
tees have surrounded their workmen and
carried their opportunities far to
amount to intimidation and coercion.
Taking up the reply of the defendants the
court remarked:
ION the other hand, the substance OF the
defendants claim is that they have never
interfered with the employers business in
any OF the ways charged. They say that
they have never attempted to persuade any
Of the employers workmen to quit their
service If they knew or believea such work
men to be under binding contract with their
employers. They say that the contracts un-
der which such men were working were
not binding
and consistently attempted to persuade the
employers workmen to leave their service
and Join the union but they say that they.
have used only peaceable persuasion. that
ba ra qae or r.