The sun., 1908-01-06

The United States Circuit Court OF Appeals
for the Eighth district, which includes the
State OF Missouri. has Just handed down a
decision affirming the court below and con-
tinuing an injunction against a boycott by
certain labor unions. The facts on which the
Injunction was granted are such as to show
that the judicial tendency Is to limit labor
unions more than ever to legitimate Opposi-
ton to the conduct Of business by the EN-
plOyer.
The Fox Brothers Manufacturing Com
pany. the plaintiff, was in business in st.
Louis, engaged in the manufacture OF sash.
doors, blinds and other articles used IN
building construction. It ran an open shop.
employing both non-unon and union help.
There were twenty-five other open shop fac
tories in st. Louis. which turned out about
so per cent. OF the trim used in that city
The employees were mostly non-uniOn.
Nearly all Of the carpenters In Sc. Louis.
however. belonged to labor organizations. A
delegate Of the United Brotherhood OF Car
penters then came TO St. Louis to organize
the open shop factories into union shops.
The plaintiffs factory was singled out for
special attention. The plan was not so much
to approach the plaintiffs employees and
persuade them to Join unions a. to make it
impossible for the plaintiff to continue its
business unless it would adjust the wages
and hours Of labor to the union scale and re-
uuire itR employees 10 Join the union or leave
its service. Inc relations between tne en-
ployer and its employees were mutually satiS-
factory. and the efforts of the unions were
not invited by either. There was no strike
and no cOntrOversy-simply an attempt TO
The organizer formed trim committee"
OF the labor organizations; they caused to be
printed circulars giving lists OF the factories
which were run as closed shops. and delivered
them TO contracting builders and architects
Of st. Louis, and also to owners about TO i'm
prove their property The list implied that
an those shops not mentioned were unfair :"
| The circulars contained a warning that union
| carpenters would not be permitted to work
uDOn any building materials not the product
| of n closed shop. Certain customers of the
plaintiff were required to sign a contract for
| bidding them to deal with the plaintiff Build
| ing operations in which its product used
| were suspended by strikes OF union workmen.
| In some instances the union men did not
| desire TO cease work. but they were required
| to do so bv threats OF discipline az the hands
, OF the organizations. which meant fines and
| obligations had been incurred by builders
| recurring them to use the produce OF the
plaintiffs factory they were allowed to con;
| execute a contract wherein the builder agreed
that in the future he would not use such
The defendants further persisted in their
course bv organizing what is known as a
| I'VE don't patronize" list This was applied
| to a brewing association which had allowed
buildings. When the brewing COMPANY
| learned that its product was being bOycotted
| it cancelled It's contract for the Use OF the
| non-union product and the organizer sent ont
1 a statement that the concern was no longer
| unfair TO union labor
| The United States Circuit Court Of Appeals,
| consisting OF Judges Sanborn, Hook and
Adams. were unanimously OF the opinion that
! the temporary Injunction be continued on the
1 foregoing state OF facts. since the acts Of
tives practically but an end to the plaintiffs
| business.