The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-07-07
REJECTS TAFTS'
PERSONAL VIEWS
ABOUTBOYCOTTS
State Supreme Court Declares
Ii Takes the Truer and More
Advanced Ground
Decision Handed Down Modify
ing Injunction Against Stable
mems Union of This City

President Tafts views on the sec
ondary boycott do not meet. with the
approval of the supreme court of Cali
fornia. In modifying the injunction in
the case Of +. G. Pierce against the
stablemen's union. local No. $3.50 ct al.
the highest court Of this state rejects
the opinion Of the chief executive Of
the nation. II takes the view that
the injunction against the union was
too sweeping and orders its modifica-
tion.
About five years ago Z. G. Pierce, as
proprietor Of the Nevada stables in
upper Market street. secured an in
junction restraining the stablemen's
union from illegal interference with
his business The men were enjoined
from carrying on a boycott or picket
ing. the stable or making threats.
An appeal was taken by the union
from this sweeping Injunction, the APP
peal being based on the ground that
as the controversy arose over a trade
dispute the court was powerIess to
grant an injunction, that the boycott
was a legal weapon and that picket
ing was legal The first point was
dismissed by the supreme court with
the observation that such a construc-
ton would imply special legislation.
The court admitted the right of union
labor 10 strike and added that it might
use moral intimidation.
QUOTE FROM TAFT
In the discussion Of boycotts Presi-
dent Taft's opinion was cited as fol-
lows, an extract being quoted from an
opinion published in McClures Maya
zine for June. 1903;
body OF workmea are dissatisfied with
the terms Of their employment They seek 10
compel their employer 10 come 10 their terms
10y striking. They may legally do so. The loss
and inconvenience he suffers be can not COM
plain Of But when they seek 10 compel third
persons. Who have no quarrel with their en-
poTer. 10 withdraw from all association with
him bv threats that unless such third persons
do so the workmen viii in7iet similar injury
such third persons. the combination is oppres
sive. involves duress. and II injury results it is
acrionable.
Reject PRESIDENTS OPINION
The wisdom of the president is re-
jected by the supreme court as fol-
lows;
Notwithstanding the great dignity which at
tsches 10 uttersnce such as this. which.
has been said. Is bur the expression Of numer-
Gus courts upon the subject matter, this court.
AFTER great 0nllnfrallon. look WnaI II DeleTeu
70 be the truer and more advanced ground. above
indicated and fully set forth in Parkinson
building trades council
The supreme court decision holds
further that "in this state the injunc-
ton viii issue. depending upon the
circumstance whether the means en-
ployed. or threatened 10 be employed,
are legal or Illegal
LAWFULLY CONDUCTED BOYCOTT
The Inconvenience which the public NAV suf-
FER by reason of a boycott lawfully conducted
Is 10 sense legal injury But the public's
rights invaded the moment the means en-
ployed are such as are calculated 10 and natu-
rally do incite to crowds, riots and disturbances
~ the pesce-
picket. in its very nature. tends to ac-
oomplish and is designed 10 accomplish these
very things
CONCLUSIONS OF THE COURT
In conclusion. then, and applying these prin-
ciples 10 the injunction here under consideration
il appears that while the injunction was prop
erly granted. il broader in its terms than
the law warrants. il was. for example, TOO
broad IN restraining defendants from 'fn any
wise interfering with" plaintiffs business, since
rhe interference which we have discussed. Of
publication. reasonable persuasion and threat TO
withdraw patronage. is legal and such as de-
PENDANTS could employ So also. was the in
junction too broad IN restraining defendants
from 'intimidating any customer by boycott or
threat Of boycott since as has been said the
secondary boycott Is likewise legal weapon
IN al other respects, however, the Injunction
was proper.
After a long list OF questions and q
discussion Of general propositions the
desision closes as follows:
The lower court is directed to mod
fly its order enjoining the union. The
decision was written by Associate Jus
tice Eenshaw and concurred in by As
sociate Justices Lorigan and Melvin
and Chief Justice Beatty. A concur
ring opinion was signed by Associate
Justices Angellotti and Sloss.
A dissenting opinion was written by
Associate Justice Shaw, who concluded
as follows:
Il do not agree to that part of the
judgment directing q modification Of
the injunction. ] believe it should
stand in the form as given. by the
court below"