The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-12-09
FINAL ARGUMEN1E|
IN PLUMBERS ClE|
Principal Controversy Bet,.
Counsel Is Whether Iniss'
ton Should Issue Or ~,
COURT TAKES MATTER
UNDER ADYISENv
Scores of Union Men d.
Follow Statements of Opus'
ing Attorneys. ~

Arguments in the case of m,
plumbers against the membe,s -
union No. - of plumbers wo,a
Wednesday before District Jpdos 1,
liitchic, L. i. Critchlow apnoa,;.
the plaintiffs and Judge W "
for the defendants. Tho case Ls,H
tried about two weeks ago ana .,
gumcntS had been deferred r..w
day.
The case is one of great imno.,
because OF the principles inyaJIs,aas,
viii be remembered that tbo
plumbers obtained an in;pn.,; ;us
stralniug the members of ~
union from performing yarion,
which. il was claimed, intcrfcraa
the business of the plaintiffs :.
hearing. testimony was Offered ~
Plaintiffs tending to show tb.,
bcrs of the defendant uu;on NJ
the shops of the plaintiffs anSs
places "hcrc non-unIon men wcre
work, and also interfercd with
union men employed by the plaipt;,
II was also claimed that mcmhs'.
the union made assaults upon NOM,
men and so cocrccd and intim;Ss.
them that they were unable fo ~
except under protection. Theso w
were all denied by the defendant, /.
between fifty and sixty of the - +
bers of the union testified that D.
not only did not commit any ~ n
acts alleged. but discountenanceS j
unlawful acts or any condnct wi;
would be an invasion of the ricb,s-
the plaintiffs OF of the non.upion
Mr.. Critchlow's Argument,
On the argument, Mr.. Critcblov /.
tended that the defendant oroauS
tion and its members hnd confeder,s
together so that the acts Of any ,rr
| ber of the union would be the ael.
all; and that the showing of the &.
mission of any act by members OF \
defendant organization which eutitI
the plaintiffs to an injunction
titled them to an injunction susi'
the union and all its members'
further argued that while men b
the right to organize. they have
right TO interfere with the propeI
rights of others. or TO prevent q
union men. by Intimidation and
crcion, from working for the mad
plumbers.
The position of Judge King for
defendants was that there was no pr.
tending TO show that the union
members of the union. had commit
any assaults or violated any Of
personal or property rights Of 4
plaintiffs He insisted that The I'd
bers of tho union had the right To-
Ganizc for the purpose of mainiaiui
a proper wage scale and 10 advance
interests of the members of The
gani2alion; that they mad the right
use persuasion to induce non.unlon. u
TO cease their work; that though N
WAS some testimony tending 10 q
that few assaults had becn commit
upon non-union men. il did not conr
! the defendant organization. or
members, with the assaults nor did|
testimony show that the organlzat
OF its members rcsorted TO coercion
intimidation or did any act "a
would be the basis of civil &C.
upon the part of the plaintiffs
Takes Wide Range.
The arguments took wide range
on the nature of labor unions, U
/ oh icctS and benefits, and how far ml
bcrs Of the union might 90 IN cases
strikes and lock-outs in inducing Y
sons to join their organization and
frain from working for emplo,,
against whom strike was dcclared
The principal controversy belS'
counsel seemed 10 be as TO whether
NOT IN injunction ought to issue, un
he facts in the case, and parilcI,a
whether. conccding that torts had p
| committed IN Il number of in%an
against non-union men and Propc
aud property rights of the Plain,,
i'm few instances had been ln'au
aus Injunction could rlghiiullN =
against an organization and All o.,
members, when most Of the memu
and lhc Officers Of the organiS1,,
/ denied that they, OF il. par,lclpa'ea
thc torts or IN the acts when Gun
lntcd The invasion Of the rlghtS o.
plaintiffs, and when they afilrmea
The organization disapproved aau
| cUuntcn1nccd any such acts.
At the conclusion OF the argpl1s'
the court took The case under au'
mcpt.