New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-22
;IEKS INJUNCTION
AGAINST UNION
.,viue CompanyWould
t esrre organized Men to
f Work on It's Products
.,v1S SECONDARY
BOYCOTT ON GOODS
"a. Show Plaintiffs Require
'n'' Hours and Pay Their
''r rmoIoyes Low Wages

.-,.s NJ Hough. Of the United
~ n,,,rict Court heard arguments
a''' on the application of the Gill
ger -, cOmpany Of 40 Fifth ave-
junction restraining the Photo-
r-n,on from establishing sec
''''' Loot, on the Gill customers and
va r-ion foremen from refusing to
- On a book or magazine any part
s'~ ~. been printed or photo-en-
:, r. non-union shops
:. Gil company is the only non-union
'' concern in the city. and for six
he g has been hghting the Allied
Trades Council. with which the
...,,-rnsravers Union is affiliated At
'-'' ,ompany ran an open shop but
:. MIN brought about so many strikes
: ...ouut Of the great number OF ap-
...,.. employed at low wages that the
. .n,,nv refused 10 hire any union
ri =, en- nresident
!A.,o,r,apv. declared that the opinion
.....r.v General McReynolds uphold
: !. ~. =. rlrht Of the union men TO strike
,hsn do work on books or maya
...,.sn which non-union men had oeen
-. .,v,s had stirred the union 20 new
-. -, against the Gin company. COM
Ia, them 70 ask for an Injunction
,,.srL Elkus, counsel for the defend
=. .m,srs OF the Photo-Engravers
1 = reduced afidavits from engravers
=. sid they had worked for the Gil
.,r,,ry. with long hours and low wages
,.,, timing the union, they declared
49, ,.,,iyed in some cases more than
..r,,. wages and shorter hours. W. NJ.
,r..h.u Of 40 West 18th st, in his afti-
.,v,, said be was paid sl4 week by the
creonpsny and worked forty-nine hours
v.,k. with no time of for luncheon.
:. was discharged. ne said. and got
via, sob at $50 for forty-seven hours
say. with half an hour for luncheon.
N, Elkus held that self-preservation
cancelled the defendants 10 better their
working conditions. He maintained that
r,rthinr that tended to build up the
,slrtlr concern tended 20 drag down
,.,r union competitors.
GIL has one OF the largest shops in the
community. He can undersel his union
sorvsators because he works his men
l.rsr hours and pays them smaller
y,rss The customers who patronize Gill
r.:suar.ly patronize union shops only for
via; Gil cannot conveniently DO" argued
III Ekus
Waving for III. moment the PROPOSE
tsa q Law, certainly as proposition OF
o-non sense, for these defendants idly
s.nd by and without opposition or per-
sasos- TO permit customers TO go TO Gil
IN al that Gill can DO for them and then
ih-cv their surplus TO the union shops is
ns equivalent OF helping Gill 70 build up
lis Business at the expense OF those per-
ra who in friendly cooperation with the
rLsns pay better wages and give better
tcz.x Gill comes into this fight with IN
t.sr hands on account Of his previous
i:tisde against union labor. and while
1 q true that re has started this fight
ars Is nothing shown in the papers OF
riacs On the part Of these defendants
lsa,s, Gil. They are working not u
an him, but 10 help themselves IN their
rcps, fight FOR satisfactory wages and
wIs No, one act Of violence or threat
alleged"
Waiter Gordon Merritt. counsel for the
~ company. maintained that the object
he Allied Printing Trades Council
III to drive the plaintiffs out Of business.
{, declared that the right TO work or not
rvk was no more absolute than any
TIE Constitutional right, and that u be-
z-s Illegal when II injured another. lie
's,l,red that the policy Of the Photo-En-
r7'sT Union was in restraint OF trade
u Violated the Penal Code. the common
Az and statutes Of state business laws.
Arssnsnts will be continued before
'1s Hugh at 1890 o'clock this morn
-