The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-06-23

vented the work being stopped.
Then the union officials felt so sure OF
their work in Manhattan that they ex-
tended their activities to Brooklyn, ac-
c. ding TO the associations lawyer. At
that time more han 1000 shops were
under the Jurisdiction of the union.
Bossert * Son were affected "a year
later and secured an injunction, which,
Mr.. Merritt says. has been persistently
violated. A week ago contempt pro-
ceedings for violation or the Injunction
were brought before Judge Crane in the
supreme Court, and argument was
heard on 1t yesterday about the same
time that warrants were issued by
Magistrate Folwell.
Baushcr PHrO1ed.
When Bausher. who 10 said to have
directed and supervised all the strikes
against ~non-unlon shops In the last
year. was arraigned he was paroled In
the custody of his counsel, Charles
Beattie. for examination.
The employment of spies, Mr.. Bossert
says. was made necessary by the union
manufacturers. some outside OF New
York. who sold goods here. because they
could not compete with the lower price
~non-union goods unless they had the aid
OF the union boycott. This led 10 an
agreement between the manufacturers
and the union leaders. the expenses
being paid from the treasury fund of
the Manufacturing woodworkers AS
ISOLATION.
Mr.. Bossert cites the case OF Jacob
schwartz, a Brooklyn builder using
Bosseft 4 Son trim, as one il,ustra-
tive or the way this agreement worked.
He says that In 1911 a business agent
OF the then Joint District Council named
Frederick Dhuy. called on Schwartz at
a place where he was building two
tenements and told him that he would
have to give up using Bossert & Sons
material.
How One strike Was Called.
A strike was called. although Dhuy.
according to the affidavit, stated TO said
Schwartz that he hated to call said strike
because the carpenters were well treated,
but that he was receiving communic,-
lions from manufacturers and builders
IN the neighborhood protesting agains.
the union for permitting Bossert's ma
terial to be used"
The extent OF this contest being waged
by the non-union manufacturers is shown
by the following statement from Mr..
Merritt:
The Danbury hat,ers case he saws.
disposed OF the ordinary boycott where
a mans trade was destroyed by boycott
ting his customers. and compelled the
abandonment by the American Fedora
ton OF Labor OF It's unfair list. for fear
Of prosecution under the antitrust law.
Labo unions do not seem TO be yet sat
isfsd. however. that the principles laid
down In this great case are as applicable
to combinations 10 destroy interstate
trade by calling strikes against factories
or buildings where open shop products
are used. and in many industries and
communities are actively engaged In
attempts to drive open shop products
out Of BY combinations OF this
character.
The fight that is going on in New
York city over the use OF open shop
wood trim is but a manifestation Of this
general disturbance. and the litigation
which has developed from 1t promises
to solve this question for the country
at large.
The criminal proceedings which have
just been instituted by the open shop
manufacturers are a part of the general
fight to resist these attempts to monop-
olize the markets of any city"