Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1906-12-20
MAKES A DECISION IN iNJuNc.
TON CASE.
TERMS OF ORDER VIOLATED
In Exhaustive Opinion, Federal Jur.
list Discusses Conditions Between
Employers and NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
Guilty of Contemplating at Gus
tom of Pickets Wearing Buttons.
Madison. Dec. IL.

otdleS u1Strlct court has decided
against the strikers in the contempt
proceedings brought by the Allis-Chal
mers company of Milwaukee against
the striking iron molders.
Judge Sanbom holds that all of the
defendants. with possibly two excep.
tons. are g;il.y Of contempt by rea-
son of having violated the terms of
the injunction issued against them by
Judge Quarles on September "a Re
garding the two defendants, Schwab
and Henning the decision states that
uncertainty exists as to the guilt of
these two men and another hearing
will be held IN Milwaukee to deter
mine their guilt or innocence.
Unions Are Guilty.
i While the decision holds that the
four iron moiders' unions of Milwan,
kee, which were joined as parties in
the contempt proceedings, are guilty
as alleged, it is held that no punish
ment can be inflicted because they are
voluntary associations and as such are
The time when the further hearing
will be held to determine the exact
defendants who are amenable to pun.
isEment has not been fixed, but is ex.
pected to be determined within a few
days.
Seldom has a more exhaustive
) treatise on the subject of the relations
between workmen and employers. be.
tween capital. and labor, been filed in
the local branch of the United States
court than is the decision of Judge
SanbtTn, filed yesterday. The aecis.
ion covers nearly so pages of typo
written manuscript and many English
decisions are quoted which were rem
dered before the independence of the
United States was gained.
Opposes Buttons on Pickets.
Judge Sanborn takes a slam at the
custom of placing a union button on
the men doing picket duty at the fac.
tories and plants of tie complainant,
stating that this custom, in his opn-
ion, operated to increase the efficien-
cy and pressure of the coercion" that
they like the uniform on the soldier,
are emblens OF a mysterious ana pow.
erful organization" and that the ,
greatly increased the potency of the
picket line" The buttons were adopt
led, 1t VIII be remembered, as a result
Iof a suggestion made to the officers
of the unions by Judge Quarles at the
time of the issuance Of the lninnc-
tional order which the defendants are
now convicted of having violated The
suggestion was made, Judge Quarles
seid at the time, in the hope that the
button would serve to prevent future
pickets from becoming parties to
street brawls and actions Of similar
nature.
Not Unlawful to Strike.
Regarding the right of workmen to
strike or their right TO organize for
the purpose OF striking, Judge sanborn
said there was no doubt. On this
question he said;
The right to strike for any cause
or for no cause, is clear and fully sus
tanned. Even a conspiracy TO strike,
followed by legal damage, Is not I'M
lawful II formed to better labor CON
ditions. Whether a threat to strike or
bring about strike, when made by
a number of persons in concert is
lawful, is an entirely different ques-
ton
Judge Sanborn then goes on TO lis
cuss the question as to how far the
two sides TO a strike--the strikers
and the employers-.may go IN order
to win out. He says this question rs
the pinch OF tho Whole situation" and
upon its determination depends large.
ly the settlement Of all strike cues
lions.
On Subject Of interference.
As partly answering the question
the decision continues:
Neither side must be permitted 10
maliciously injure the other without
just cause or excuse. SO long as each.
In the conflict between them, puraues
only his own fair interest or adyan.
tage and not the injury OF the other,
he is not liable for any injury which
is merely incidental.
Indirect interference by labor un
ion with the employers business, not
amounting TO coercion. by prevent
ing him from getting workmen 10 car
rs OF his shop, is not unlawful so long
as the combination is merely taking
measures to secure it's own legitimate
advantages or economic advancement,
although harm may incidentally result
70 the employers
Becomes Malicious injury.
After discussing this phase Of the
case at some length, the decision
states as conclusion: