Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1908-06-04

OtnerS, the supreme court nanueu uoWn
a decision Monday which is one Of the
greatest victories ever won by or
ganized labor in America.
The action was begun by Lindsay &
Co. TO restrain the unions from dis.
tributing circulars declaring the firm
unfair, and an injunction was issued by
the lower court. This injunction is
now ordered dissolved and set aside.
The opinion was written by Associate
Justice Holloway and concurred in by
Chief Justice Brantley and Associate
Justice Smith. 1t gives an outline of
the cause and quotes the circular as
follows:
"UNFAIR.
can laboring men and those in SYM
pathy with organized labor are re-
quested not to patronize Lindsay q
company, who are engaged in the
wholesale fruit business, also distrib-
utors for cigars and vegetables of all
kinds, in Billings and vicinity, as they
are unfair. We urge the retail mer-
chants, laboring men and all who are
in sympathy with organized labor to
place themselves in position to pa
tronize friendly wholesalers. We
further desire to call attention TO the
fact that Lindsay & Company are
operating peddling wagons throughout
this city, and we ask the people to
guard against patronizing these wagons.
We ask this for your own protection
and the protection Of organized labor.
(signed)
"YELLowsToNE TRADES AND LA.
BOR ASSEMBLY"
That Immediately after the adoption
of the resolution and the publication
of this circular a large number of re-
tail dealers in Billings, who had there.
tofore purchased goods from the plain
tiff company, ceased to do business
with the concern, with the result that
the business of the company at
Billings was practically paralyzed and
great financial loss resulted. As stated
by the witness Vaughan for plaintiff:
"we have lost patronage from these
merchants on account of being unfair.
There is no other cause" Another
witness for the plaintiff testified that
at a meeting of the Clerks union in
Billings, early in November, 1907, the
defendant Fairgrieve made the state
ment that "they had Lindsay & Com
pany on the unfair list and they had
him where they wanted him, and he
believed it was n good thing to leave
him there" Fairgrieve testified that
he did not remember making any such
statement. However, this is imma-
terial to a consideration Of the matter
before us. From these facts we are
20 determine the question: Should the
Injunction have been dissolved
II is to be observed that only two
acts of any consequence are shown TO
have been committed by the defend
ants:
Q) They declared Lindsay & Com
pany unfair, or, in the language of re-
spondent, boyeotted the company; and
(2) they published the circular set
forth above, that is, they caused 1t to
be printed and circulated.
The Injunction as modified Is very
sweeping in its terms, and in that form
could not be Justified by any opssible
state OF facts; but assuming that IL
was continued for the purpose of pre-
venting the continuance in force OF the
boycott, and for the purpose OF pre-
venting a repetition Of the publication
of the circular or a similar one-ai
though there is not any evidence oil
any threat or purpose on the part OF
the defendants or any one OF them to
repeat that active may consider the
question presented to us by reference
TO these two principal acts mentioned
/. Does the continuance in force OF
the resolution Of October %, 1907
amount TO such an invasion or plain
tiff,s rights as will warrant the inter
position Of a court Of equity by in
junction To determine this question
requires brief reference to the policy
pursued by courts and legislative bod
les toward labor organizations and th'
conflicts which have arisen betweei
such organizations and the employer
of labor
II we accept the report in Rex VI
Journeyman Tailors, s Mod. IL, ms cor
rect. IL was held in that ease that tn
preconcerted refusal of certain work
ingmen to continue their employment
even though their object was TO sc