United labor bulletin., 1910-11-24
sreREorvpERs WIN BIG CASE.
Notable Decision Declares Strike for
Union shop Legal.

Noe11lo DECISION 0octareo okrths TOT
Union shop Legal.
The American Federationist for Octo-
ber prints an interesting article from
the pen of James ]. Freel, president OF
the International Stereotypers and Eec-
trotypers' union, on the legality of strik-
ing for the closed shop. The article Is
especially significant when such enemies
of unionism as Post, Parry, ct al, are
doing their utmost to influence the bench
against labor organizations and in favor
| of the open shop. Freel's article is re-
published herewith in full:
"Organized labor, through the Stereo-
typers' and Electrotypers' unions of New
York City. has just won notable case
in the courts through decision handed
down in the New York State Court OF
Appeals. The point involved was the
right of employers to execute contract
with a union to conduct union office.
I'm 1902 l~ew York Stereotypers' un-
ion No. and the New York Electrotyp-
ers' union endeavored to organize the
electrotype department of the Brooklyn
branch of the United States Printing
company, their efforts resulting in
strike of a large majority of the men
employed in the department on the 18th
of March The company tried to have
its electrotyping done in other Offices,
with the result that the men walked out
in one Office and were ready to quit in
others, finally compelling the United
States Printing company to do its own
electrotyping with the few men who re-
mained in its employ.
"a campaign of publicity was begun
I'll I. III
pressed so persistently that during
April, 1903, negotiations were begun for
settlement of differences, which re-
suited in an agreement between the
company and the unions in August, 1903,
providing for the payment of the scale
and the employment of union men oniy.
after the 1st of January, 1904.
"The unions, to show their fairness in
the matter agreed to, and did notify the
customers of the company and all labor
unions throughout the country of the
amicable adjustment of the differences.
Shortly before the date (January,
1900, when the agreement was to go
into effect, William P. Kissam, small
stockholder in the company and foreman
of the electrotype department; George
H. Driscoll; a fnisher, and William f.
refused to join the union, were granted
an Injunction by the court, restraining
the company from carrying out its agree
ment with the unions.
1.-TWO actions were begun. one in the
name of Nissan as stockholder and en-
ploye, and the other in the name of Dris-
coll and Mills as employees. In these ac-
tions the unions already mentioned, an.
the International Stereotypers' and Elec-
trotypers' union, were made co-defeno-
ants with the printing company and
thereby restrained from compelling the
printing company to live up to its agree
ment.
after several trials and appeals the
court of appeals handed down a decision
on June 8, 1910, refusing to sustain the
injunction and affirming the decision of
the lower courts given in favor of the
unions.
"Ex-Judge Alfred Steckler appeared
for the unions and argued the cases in
the lower courts and before the court
of appeals. He contended that the plain
tiffs (Kissam, Driscoll and Mills) were
not parties to the agreement and could
not interfere with its fulfllment, and the
contention was upheld by Justice Ma
rean of the supreme court special term
in Kings county. His decision was af-
firmed later by the appellate division
and sustained again after six years of
! litigation by the court of appeals, the
court of last resort.
| During the past two years the COM
pany, finding that better service was rem
dered by union men, have displaced
many of their old employees and en-
ployed by the company belong to the
union, only plaintiff in the cases remain
ing in the employ of the company when
the matter was finally decided by the
court Of appeals.
This litigation has cost unions Nos.
and 100 thousands of dollars, and while
justice has been slow, with the aid of
an able, honest and persevering lawyer,
the highest court has decided tnat labor
unions have. right to sign contracts
with employers for the employment OF
union men only and enforce the fulfill
ment of same without interference from
the non-union employees who may be
affected.
while the object for which the unions
were striving was obtained before the
appeal was made to the court of appeals,
the members of Nos. 1 and 100 felt 1t
their duty to oppose it in the interest
of all labor organizations, feeling that
others-more desirous of obtaining a de-
cision against labor unions than the re-
naming plaintiff and the printing COM
pany-were forcing the appeal, hoping
in the event of no opposition being
made to get a decision favorable to
them that would establish a precedent
which could be quoted by some associa-
tion antagonistic to the efforts Of organ
izations of workingmen."
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE
SMOKING HABIT.