Twin city review. [volume] (Champaign, Ill.) 19??-1929, 1922-06-30

anime What state and federal courts
s. eaaisx have dane in cases ii or
CARNATIONS 81 business men boycott
sng other business nen.
10 these ease Ne ana thaf the
courts refused = issue lnlanetl0ns
aud. ia aaIax Sc, announced he law
as Gsll rs the principles Il equity
which justified SEsa supported their
decisions. which i gwen with the
same reasea IN l4her eases would have
Welded Ike results. Ne are a loss
70 understand tie legal distinctions.
Re boldly state there are none. The
alstineflen being ealy in the parties
IN this Statemen; | aS lasinan find
SUPPORT n the opinions Of some Of our
greatest legal minds a. the bar and Ia
tie dissenting opinions of fair judges
Owing u the collective action Of an
organization II retail dealers in South
Dakata. their publication Of an unfair
list. and the boyeott which followed.
Montgomery, Mard 4 Company Of
Chicago, applied a The Federal Court
Of South Dakota, fer an injunction.
Judge Garland refused 10 issue an in
junction, saying IN part:
"fhe facts la evidence on this hear
INK show that the retail dealers have
agreed among themselves that they
viii not purchase merchandise from
wholesalers and lobhers who sell 70
catalogue ~ mail order houses, that
they have eorrespended with johhers
and wholesalers stating that they
we're opposed &c wholesalers and job
beFs selling to catalogue or mail or
der houses, and have requested the
former not TO sell 10 the latter .
Are these acts Of the retail dealers
nnlawfuls Is persuasion un-
lawful when considered with reference
to this ease? So That the retail
dealers have lawful right TO agree
among themselves that they will not
purchase merchandise from wholesal.
ers aud inhhers who sell TO catalogue
or mail order houses, cannot ne de-
MED, and il necessarily follows that
they have the right 10 inform each
other as to what wholesalers and Job
bers sell to catalogue and mail order
houses
During the ~open shop campaign
in st. Eaul, Mimi, the Citizens AL
lance, which federated practically all
of the business mems, manufacture
ers' and bankers associations of that
city for the purpose Of establishing
the open shop" boycotted the firm
of Delaney Brothers, plumbers. be-
cause Of their refusal 70 put an "open
shop card in their window. Delaney
Brothers applied for an injunction TO
protect them from the boycott.
Ia refusing to grant the injunction,
the court said IN part:
III an act be lawful-~one that the
party has q leeal right TO do--the
fact that he may be actuated by an
improper motive does not render IL
unlawful II was lawful for
any enc Of the defendants to sever
business relations with the plaintiffs.
therefore, II was lawful for two or
more Of them.n
After which the court quoted the
following decision of Judge Cooley:
1T is a part of every mans civil
rights that he be left az liberty ~
rafuse business relations with any
person whomsoever, whether the re-
fusal rests upon reason or Is the re-
suit OF whim, caprice, prejudice, or
malice, with his reasons, neither the
public nor third persons have any
concern
IN the Pennsylvania case of Cote
rs. Murphy, the court upheld the en-
ployers' right to boycott upon the fol-
lowing legal reasons;
A combination Of employers pre-
venting dealers in the supply used by
such employers from selling 20 an en-
ployer who was not a member of their
combination and who had consented
to the demand Of employees by i'm
forming such dealer that no member
Of the combination would buy from
them If they sold to such employer, is
not illegal or unlawful, nor does it
amount TO coercion
That was Il case where Cote had
entered into an agreement covering
terms of employment with his organ-
lied employees IN opposition to the
policy OF the other organized employ
ers in the district.
II viii be noted that in that case,
the court supported the employers
right to apply both the primary and
secondary boycott.
A building contractor named Do
mascio had been boycotted by the
Master Builders Association of Dem
yer. He applied for an injunction to
protect himself. This was issued by
a lower court, but when the Master
Builders Association carried the case
to the Appellate Court, the injunc
ton was set aside and vacated. In
doing this, the court said in part:
:" 1t may be stated as a general prin-
eiple, SO universally recognized in
this country as to become automatic,
that man has lawful right 10 work
for, or deal with, or refuse to work
for, or deal with any man, or class Of
men as he sees fit; and upon the
same principle be has lawful right
to compete with. or refuse to COM
pete with. any person or persons or