The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-08-20
RoYcoTTs AND iNJUNcTIoNs.

Considerable interest has been
aroused in both labor and employers
circles by the recent action of Judge
W. H Hunt of the United States cir
cult court in granting of a temporary
injunction restraining the Montana
Federation, Livingston Trade and Labor
Council and the telephone operators of
Union AZ from interfering with the
operations of the Bell Telephone COM
pany.
Briefly stated, the ground of the
complaint was furnished by bOyCotting
circulars and declarations of the unions
intended to compel merchants and
others 10 take out telephones and stop
doing business with the Bell company.
The defense claimed it's efforts were
intended only to persuade or induce
the company to pay its employees
such wages as would permit them to
live, and that the means used were
lawful to that end.
Reviewing the evidence, Judge Hunt
in his opinion holds that it is shown
that their intention was to dissuade
people from entering the employ of
the company and to compel, so far as
they could, the payment of certain
wages to it's employees. On this point
he concludes:
so we have a combination, an ad-
mitted combination, or association of
individuals existing and moving toward
an end, which, as I have indicated be-
fore, is the interference with the bust
ness of the complainant company by
preventing patrons from patronizing
it, or operatives from entering into
its employ. and holding it up to OPP
probium as a 1egalized highwayman. -
Discussing the question whether such
a combination is legal or not, the court
cites the opinion of Justice Harlan of
the Supreme court in Callen vs. Will
son, involving a boycott by the Musi-
who had refused to continue as union
members and who were refused en-
ployment because of the boycott. In
that case Justice Harlan decided the
action of the union was unlawful. Nu-
merous other decisions of the same
purport are cited, showing the right
of the court to grant an injunction.
and in his comment Judge Hunt says:
There is no doubt whatever of the
right of individuals to withdraw from
There can be no doubt of it. That is
a cardinal basic principle. But there
is another principle that is correlative:
II there be the right to withdraw from
service Of an employer. there is the
right to work for an employer. The
very same principle Of liberty that
guarantees the right in one instance
protects the man in the enjoyment of
it in the other.
Whether man be a union man or
whether he be called a 'scab'-whether
he be non-union mamie has the
right TO work for whomsoever he
pieases, and the law must protect the
one as it must protect the other in
tAiS enjoyment OF MS constitutional
and inalienable rights"
Finally, going into the exercise of
the courts right to enioin in such
cases, Judge Hunt says:
I'm granting these orders, courts are
confronted oftentimes by difficulties in
reaching correct decisions. 1t NAV
often happen that the facts render IT
hard to determine what is just and
right to all parties concerned, but I
think this case appeals much more
strongly to court of equity than a
number of those cases which were
cited in argument yesterday. And
there is another rule, which is that
court OF equity, in the exercise of its
power, and a chancellor in the eyer
else of his judicial discretion may con-
form their rulings to the exigencies of
a changing society, and there can he
no situation arising out of modern
complexities which cannot be dealt
with by court Of equity, provided a
wrong has been done. and he who is
entitled to the protection OF the law
comes into court and asks for that pro-
lection, and I trust that, upon refIec-
ton, tie parties concerned in this mat
ter who have posted those bills down
at Livingston and who have written or