The labor advocate. [volume] (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1912-1937, 1916-07-15
Another Judge Decides
Against Employers Ass n.
Trades Unionsts Win Victory For Free Speech and
Organization Before St. Paul, Minn., Court
Full Text of Decision.

with any tools or implements rented or
leased from it, or to work for or buy
from those who deal with the plaintiff.
There is nothing unlawful in this.
Every man may refuse to work for or
to deal with another man, and may re-
fuse to handle his products or work
with his tools for any reason sufficient
unto himself; and what he can do in
this respect individually he can do col
lectively by agreement with others and
through a federated agency. 1t is only
unlawful acts that can be enjoincd, and
it is not unlawful to dispose of ones
own labor or patronage where one
pleases, nor is it unlawful to refuse
ones labor or patronage to another.
"There is no evidence here which
shows or tends to show that any threat
OF general boycott or strike against
any one contracting or desiring to con-
tract with the plaintiff has been made,
nor have any threats been made that
such contractors would be prevented
from fulfilling their contracts or carry
ing on their business, or that in taking
and executing contracts with the plain
TIT they would encounter anything more
than the economical condition resulting
from refusal of union labor to work
on plaintiffs jobs.
In my judgment there is nothing in
the claim that union men will be CO.
creed by threats or fines, etc. Any in
dividual may abandon his union at WILL
and can not by any legal method be com
PEELED to pay labor union fine He be-
longs to and acts with a union or not
just as he pleases, and his choice in the
matter is based on economic considera
tions. Self-interest and desire on the
part of each individual to do the best
for himself he can under economic cir
cumstances is at the bottom of the whole
scheme. 1t is very idle threat to
threaten man with fine he can not
be compelled to pay, and the paying or
not paying of which is a matter of his
own judgment and choice, and the pay
ment of which is merely a condition
of retaining certain contractual rela-
tions with others.
"1'he word unfair as interpreted by
its use as shown in the evidence means
no more than that the one to whom it
is applied is considered to run an open
shop or non-unon business and to be
opposed to organized labor, and to be
such an one as union laborers refuse to
work for or deal with. The letters in
evidence written by the officers of the
various unions to various sub-contract-
ors state that because plaintiff is unfair
no union laborers will be allowed to
work on his jobs. This language is con-
strued by the plaintiff to be threat
that union laborers will be prevented
by unlawful coercion from working on
the plaintiffs jobs. But such a con-
struction is manifestly unfair, and, fair
! ly construed the letters amount to no
more than to say that the conditions Of
membership in the unions will prevent
union laborers from working upon the
plaintiffs jobs.
"A large portion of the complaint is
an attack upon the general scheme of
organized labor on the ground that it
is an unlawful conspiracy in restraint
of trade and competition in violation of
the penal statutes of Minnesota. If this
is so, it is matter for the attorney gen
eral to take I'D on behalf of the State
Upon all the evidence, taking into
consideration both the plaintiffs afii-
davits and the atfidavts of the defend
ants in denial and explanation of the
plaintiffs affidavits, it has not beer
SHOWN lIldu lncSC uClCllidlllS HAVE uOlll
anything more than they had a lega
right to do, and there is no evidence
which fairly tends to show that they in,
tend to do any more than to refuse tc
work on the plaintiffs jobs, or to show
that they intend and contemplate boy.
colts and secondary strikes against third
persons dealing with the plaintiff fol
the purpose of coercing them to in turr
coerce the plaintiff do not mean tc
hold that the complaint is not sufficient
as a complaint in an action for an in
junction, but merely that it is so de-
void of specific facts and consists SC
entirely of general conclusions that il
is of no force as evidence upon which
to base the temporary injunction prayed
for.
And on the evidence ! hold that il
has not been shown that the defendants
have done or Contemplate doing any
thing more than to refuse as union la
bCrers to work for the plaintiff upon
any OF his enterprises so long as he con
tinues to run an open or non union shop
and that such refusal is legal and with
in their rights. Seattle Union Record