Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

from the large organized membership Of the Union. that defendants sought to exert upon plaintiff. and it renders pertinent what was said by this court in the Gompers case (22l T. =. 41S. s$1l. immediately following the re ccgnitiOn of the right r0 form labor unions; But the very fact that it is lawful to form bodies. with multitudeS Of members. means that they have |. thereby acquired a vast power. in the presence of which the individual may be helpless. This power. when unlaw- fully used against one. cannot be met. except by the purchasing peace at the cost of submitting to terms which in- volve the sacrifice of rights protected b. the Constitution; or by standing O. such rights and appealing to the preventive powers of a court Of equity When such appeal is made it is the da>y of government to protect the one aSainst the many ss we'll as the many asainst the one.'
 Defendants acts cannOs be justified 5y any analogy 10 competition in trade They are not competitors of plaintiff: and if they were their conduct exceeds the bounds of fair trade. Certainly. if competing trader should endeavOr to draw custom from his rival. not by of fering better or cheaper goods. employ ing more competent salesmen. or dis playing more attractive advertise ments, but by persusding the rivals clerks to desert him under circum- stances rendering it difficult or em- barrassinS for him to fill their places. any court of equity would grant an in junction to restrain this as unfair com petition.
 Upon all the facts, we are conStrain- ed to hold that the purpose entertain eG by defendants to bring about strike at plaintiffs mine in order to compel plaintiff. through fear of finan- cial loss, to consent to the uniOniza- tiOa of the mine as the lesser evil. was an unlawful purpose, and that the methods resorted to by Hughes-the inducing of employees to unite with the Union in an effort to subvert the system of employment at the mine by concerted breaches of the contracts Of employment known to be in force there. not tO mention miSrepreSenta- tiCn. deceptive statements. and threats oi pecuniary loss communicated by Hughes to the men-were unlawful and malicious methods. and nor 10 De justified as a fair exercise of the right to increase the membership of the Unf5n.
 There can be no question that plain tiff was threatened with danger Of an immediate strike as result Of the activities of Hughes. The effect Of his arguments and representations is not tO be judged from the testimony Of those witnesses who rejected his Overtures. Naturally. il was not easy for plaintiff to find men who would testify that they had agreed with Hughes to break their contract with plaintiff. One such did testify But the true measure Of the extent Of his operations and the probability of his carrying them to success are indicat- ed by his declaration to Myers that he had about enough names at the Hitchman 10 crack off" by the state ment to Mckinley that twenty-foUr men at the Glendale mine had joined the organization. and sixty at :he Hitchman. and by the fact that taey actually succeeded in shutting down the Richland about the middle Of Cc- tOber. The declaration made concern ing the Glendale is cOrrobOrated by the evidence of what happened at that mine.
 That the damage resulting from strike would be irremediahie at law is too plain for discussion
 Therefore. upon the Uniispute1 facts Of tho case. and the indUhitahle infer enccs from them. plaintiff is entitled to relief by injunction Having he come convinced by three costly stiilCs occurring within a period Of as many years. of the futlity Oi attempting :o operate under a cloSed-ShoP agreement with the Union. it established the mine on e non-union basis. with tho unanimous approval ot i'S employees in fact upon their Sugyestio l--Snd under mutual agreement. asSentcd to by every cmpf9vcs. that plarntisf would ContinuCtO run it's mine nor union and would mo; rccoEnize thC Uniied Nine Workers of America that
 . llg nan Vau. cd tu 5e-1Eae a -re-g-