The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1922-04-29
Continued from page ~

Continued from page ~ r. "
plaintiff, =" : or in any way, or
manner, attempting to bring about
boycott against the PLAINTIFFS
business, or to: injure it in any man
ner whatsoever .,s 49,,
When the Building Contractors
Asso of Lynn. Mass, endeav-
ored to enforce their "open shop"
policy in 1908, the building trades
went on strike against the "open
shop" rules. -
In addition to restraining the
! trade-unionists from continuing
their strike. the permanent injunc-
ton restrained the strikers
From combining together to fur
Their the strike including
| the payment Of strike benefits and
putting the plaintiff on the unfair
list"
In the famous case against Com
pers, Mitchell and Morrison, a fed
| eral court in the District of Colum-
bia restrained them from publishing,
in the American Federationist, any
! statement that a certain firm was
unfair to labor.
Let us within our limited space
examine what state and federal
courts of equity have done in cases
Of organizations of business men
boycotting other business men.
In those cases we find that the
courts refused to issue injunctions
and, in doing so. announced the law,
as we'll as the principles of equity
which justified and supported their
decisions, which if given with the
same reason in labor cases would
have yielded like results We are at
a loss to understand the legal dis
tinctions. We boldly state there are
none. The distinction being only in
the parties. In this statement as
ions, Of some of our greatest legal
minds at the bar and in the dissent
ing opinions of fair judges.
Owing to the collective action of
an organization Of retail dealers in
South Dakota, their publication of
an unfair list, and the boycott which
followed, Montgomery, Ward &
Company of Chicago, applied to the
Federal Court Of South Dakota, for
an Injunction. Judge Garland re-
fused to issue an injunction, saying
in part:
"The facts in evidence on this
hearing show that the retail dealers
have agreed among themselves that
they will not purchase merchandise
from wholesalers and jobbers who
sell to catalogue or mail order
houses; that they have correspondent
with jobbers and wholesalers stating
that they were opposed to whole
salers and jobbers selling to cata-
logue or mail order houses, and
have requested the former not to
sell to the latter Are these
acts of the retail dealers unlaw-
full? +. Is persuasion unlaw-
full when considered with reference
to this case? That the re-
tail dealers have a lawful right to
agree among themselves that they
will not purchase merchandise from
VIII olesalers and jobbers who sell to
catalogue and mail order houses,
cannot be denied, and it necessarily
|
form each other as to what whole
salers and jobbers sell to catalogue
and mail order houses"
During the "open shop" campaign
in St. Paul. Mimi, the Citizens AL
lance, which federated practically
all Of the business mems, manufac-
turers' and bankers associations OF
that city for the purpose Of estab-
fishing the "open shop" boycotted
the firm of Delaney Brothers,
plumbers, because of their refusal
to put an "open shop card in their
window. Delaney Brothers applied
for an Injunction to protect them
from the boycott.
In refusing to grant the injunc-
ton, the court said in part:
"1f an act be lawful-one that the
party has a legal right to do-the
fact that he may be actuated by an
, improper motive does not render il
unlawful It was lawful fol
any one of the defendants to sever
business relations with the plaintiffs
therefore, it was lawful for two OF
more of them"
After which the court quoted the
following decision of Judge Cooley
ut is a part of every mans civil
right that he be left at liberty to re-
fuse business relations with any per
son whomsoever, whether the re-
fusal rests upon reason, or is the re-
} suit of whin. caprice, prejudice, Of
malice, with his reasons, neither thu
: public nor third persons have an!
. concern"
In the Pennsylvania case of Cot
vs.. Murphy, the court upheld thu
employers right to boycott upon tn
following legal reasons:
, "A combination of employers pre-
venting dealers in the supplies uset
by such employers from selling t.
an employer who was not membe
of their combination and who hat
consented to the demand Of EN-
ployes. by informing such deale
that no member Of the combinatio,
would buy from them if they -solt
to such employer is not illegal O.
unlawful, nor does it amount to CO
erciion.''
/, That was case where Cote hat
entered into an agreement covering
terms Of employment with his or
, gained employees in opposition t.
the policy of the other organized