The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1908-10-12
MODIFIED BY
HIGHER COURT
Labor Injunction Passed or
by Appellate Body.
SIX SECTIONS STRICKEN

Three Others Approved in Revised
Form and the Remainder Affirmed
and Allowed to Stand-Case Affects
Strikers of the AIls- Chalmers Com
pany and the Restraining Orde,
Was Issued Several Years Ago.
Chicago, Oct. 12.-Considerably mod
flied and with a number of it's para
graphs vacated the federal court in
junction issued against the Iron
Molders' union No. 125 of Milwaukee
during the strike at the plants of the
Allis-Chalmers company several years
ago was upheld by the United States
circuit court of appeals. The decision
was rendered by Judges Grosscup, Ba
ker and Seaman.
The injunction was issued by Judge
Sanborn of Milwaukee on complaint oil
the Allis-Chalmers company and re
strained the union from picketing the
Allis-C Chalmers plants. Individual mem
bers of the union were later founo
guilty of violating the injunction and
were punished for contempt of court
The final decree of the court in the in.
junction proceedings involved four 10.
cal unions of the national organiza
ton Of iron molders and some sixty
individuals who were members and
officers of the unions. An appeal from
the decision of Judge Sanborn was
taken by the unions and presented to
the court of appeals last fall.
In enjoining the unions from picket.
ing the higher court made modifica.
tions which makes the injunction en-.
join them only from "picketing in a
threatening or intimidating manner.
The court also held that the lower
court went too far In prohibiting
peaceful picketing and held that there
was no reason for enjoining a boycott
because none existed.
The injunction contained sixteen
paragraphs, each making a provision
against the unions. Of these para.
graphs six were vacated entirely and
three were modified by the court oil
appeals. The remainder were affirmed
and allowed to stand. The following
are those affirmed by the higher court
Injunction Is Amended.
"The defendants are enjoined from
compelling or inducing or attempting
to compel or induce by threats, intimi.
dation, force or violence any of the
said ccmpany's employees to fail or re-
fuse to work for it or to leave it's serv.
ice.
From preventing or attempting to
prevent any person or persons by
threats, intimidation, force or violence
from freely entering into or continu
ing In the said company's service.
From interfering with the said com
pany's employees in going to and from
their work
From intimidating or threatening
In any manner the wives and families
Of said employees at their homes ol
elsewhere.
From doing any of the aforesaid OF
any other acts for the purpose of com
pelling and inducing or attempting to
compel or induce the complainant by
threats, intimidation, force or violence
against its will or the will of its Off
GERS to employ or discharge any per
son or persons whomsoever and espe
cfally to employ members of said un
ions or discharge persons who are no
members of said unions
From combining, associating
agreeing, mutually understanding, un
dertaking, concerting together or will
other persons for the purpose of do
Ing or causing to be done any of the
aforesaid prohibited acts.
From by threats, intimidation, per
suasion, force or violence compelling
or attempting to compel or induce any
OF the apprentices in the employ OF
said establishment to break their con
tracts and leave the employ of said
com nlainant