The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 27, 1901, Page 1

- ——— VOLUME XC-—NO. 57. SAN FRANCISCO, SATURDAY, JULY 27, 1901. . PRICE FIVE CENTS. COURT TAKES A HAND IN THE LABOR SITUATION, WHICH IS ASSUMING A MORE SERIOUS ASPECT, THOUGH NO SEVERE OUTBREAK HAS YET OCCURRED SUPPORTERS OF SCHLEY PROTEST Claim That an Attempt Is Made to Influence the Court. Pointed Language in the Pre- cept Regarding Santiago Campaign. Exception Is Taken to $he Statement That Commodore Schley Dis- obeyed Certain Orders of Navy Department. e e CALI. BUREAU, 146 G STREET, W., WASHINGTON, July 26—Besides is- suing formal orders to-day to the court nvestigate the con- Schley, Secretary precept, the matters to be investigated. shows that the court will conduct of not only Rear of all other offi- ted in the Santiago oreover, empowered to cers who partict campaign. It it any, 7 officer found guilty of t. While Rear Ad- mitations, the court m guilty of any of end his court-martial, d mot adopt Language Is Objected To. he 3 a ot limit or re- o the “entire y directed pon ten points. Schley imme- department the precept, fore it had s tment, con- t ts ¢ May 25, 18%8.” s I Y the word ; because in his c v Department C ed “much to be re- ders of depart- was made,” the Secretary each spe the care with which re not presented as we “They sim- en set forth in the Schley declares vestigation. al form observed documents of like the guidance of on. 1 Right of an Officer. of an officer to e matters affecting his to be investigated. It not on to but to the vestigation. pt the de- ul to avold anything ke an accusation. It simply ioned points which, to use Admiral wn phrase, “have been matters right conduct w »uld be so, added that the court Rear Admiral Schley and reco; im for promotion, or it might find reprehensible conduct on the part of which would necessitate fur- ther action EXPLAINED BY SAMPSON. Tells Why He Went to Siboney on the Day of the Battle. BOSTON, July 26.—One effect of Ad- miral Sc s demand for a court of in- ral Sampson, some going so far as subject for official investigation. interviewed to-day by correspondent. “ many sources, admiral, numer- charges are being made concerning r conduct of the operations during the ntiago campaign,” said the correspond- Samp a Call the =admiral, wearily, t is malicious, venomous sing written and said.” been severely criticized of g to Siboney on the morn- the Santiago battle What was son for so doing’ to Siboney upon the urgent re- Major General Shafter, who had ncil of war. He being 1l and, moreover, being a sénior s incumbent upon me to go ther than him to me. I chose when it seemed the least Cervera's fleet would come out This opinion is substan- act that Cervera has been ticized for choosing this most ne time, rather than waiting before dark, when he would nity to scatter his ships, with & good chance of some escaping in the darkhess. “In is connection it may be well to Continued on Page Three, 1 a cou . | outlining which should be insti- | ulry has been to renew the attacks upon | | agreement the defendants requested the pa- JUDGE SLOSS ENJOINS LABOR UNIONS FROM INTERFERING WITH & = | | |1 1 | i { | [ | [ | v TITRINERS GATHERY/ & UDGE M. C. SLOSS of the Superior | Court yesterday rendered judg- | ment against the defendants, in | the action in equity instituted by Mathias Johnson, restaurant keep- er, against the Hotel and Restaur- ant Employes’ International Al- liance and the Bartenders’ Inter- national League of America. 'The effect of the decision is to enjoin the labor unions from interfering with the business of employers. In his complaint the plaintiff averred that the defendants had entered to coerce him into his business to e defendaats threatened that unless he complied with their demands they would declare a boycott against him, would call out all cooks and walters in his employ and would permit no union waiters or cooks to fill the vacancies. The threat of the unions was unheeded and they moved to force compliance with their demands. Johnson filed suit in which he prayed judgment restraining the defendant labor organizations from inter- fering with the conduct of his business. the conti'c and for that purpose ke the precept as im- “ Bishop, Wheeler & Hoefler appeared for the plaintiff. The defendants were repre- | sented by Attorney H. W. Hutton. The allegations of the plaintiff were supported by affidavits. To some of these affidavits denials were entered by the unions. Argu- ment on the law governing the issues in- | volved was ordered by the court and the | case was submitted. Yesterday the judgment of the court| was filed, directing that an injunction is- sue, “pendente lit ‘restraining the de- fendants, their servants, agents and em- ployes from persuading or inducing per- | | sons in the employ of the plaintiff to leave his employ, from intimidating by threats, express or implied, of violence or physi- cal harm to body or property, any person or persons from entering into the employ of the plaintiff or from dealing with or | patronizing him; from.preventing or at-| tempting to prevent, by the use of the word ‘unfair’ or any other false or de- famatory word or words, statement or statements, oral or written, any person from entering into the employ of the plaintiff or from dealing with or patron- | izing him.” Judge Sloss’ decision ordering the issu- ance of the injunction follows in full: Charges of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff above named having filed a { complaint, the allegations of which will be | summarized hereatter, a Judge of this court | tssued an order on the defendants to show | cause why an injunction, pendente lite, should ‘ not issue as prayed in the complaint. | The motion for an injunction is based on the | verified complaint. The defendants who have | appeared, who include all upon whom the order to show cause has been served, have filed afi- aavits in opposition, and plaintiff has presented reply sfdavits. The substance of the complaint may be stated as follows: Plaintiff is the proprietor of two restaurants in the city snd county of San | Francisco. Some of the defendants are labor unions or organizatiéns, and others are officers of or persons in sympathy with such organiza- | tions. Ome of the defendant unions is com- | posed of cooks, waiters and bartenders em- ployed in hotels and restaurants. The defend- ants entered into & conspiracy In order to coerce plaintiff into the subjection of his busi- ness to the control of the defendants, and for | that purpose stated to him that unless he com- | | plied with the rules of the Cooks’ and Waiters' | | Alliance, Local No. 30 (one of the defendants), | they would declare a boycott against him and | would call out all cooks and waiters in his employ and permit no union walters or cooks | to enter,his employ. The defendants further requested plaintiff to sign a certain agreement with said Cooks’ and Waiters’ Alllance Local No. 3, providing in substance that plaintift ghould employ none but members of sald union, that certain hours per day and days per week should constitute the maximum of work to be required of plaintiff's employes and that a cer- tain scale of wages should be paid. Unions Order the Strike. Upon plaintiff’s refusal to enter into such | 1 trons of plaintiff not to deal with him, ‘“falsely end unlawfully declaring that plaintiff was an enemy to labor and was unfalr and kept unfair places of business.’” The defendants. further. WAIING FoR FEFORTS oM RoGRLSE OF WE e e THE SUPERIOR JUDGE WHO RENDERED A DECISION GRANTING AN THE POLICE FREQUENTLY USED THEIR RIOT 4= DAY’'S INCIDENTS OF THE STRIKE. INJUNCTION AGAINST THE COOKS AND WAITERS. CLUBS AGAINST GATHERING CROWDS. L solicited plaintiff’s employes to leave his em- ploy, and numbers of them did so leave. The defendants caused men to be picketed in front of plaintiff’s restaurants and to march up and down and call forth in loud and threatening tones not to patronize plaintiff, that the plain- tiff was unfair and kept an unfair house. By reason of these acts large crowds congregated in front of plaintiff’s places of business and blocked the passageways thereto. The defend- ants organized processions of men displaying transparencies on which were inscribed notices not to deal with plaintiff; they caused men bearing placards (i. e., sandwich-men, so called), to walk in front of plaintiff’s restaurants, such placards being inscribed: ‘Don’t patronize Johnson's Creamerfe. It is a non-union house. Six days a week is long enough for any restaur- ant emplova to work. Helo us with our ficht for a day’'s rest and a shorter workday by patronizing houses with & union card.’” The defendants further caused various labor organizations to pass rules forbldding any of their members, under penalty of fine or expul- sion, to patronize the plaintiff. The sald acts are all alleged to have bea§ done pursuant to and In furtherance of the conspiracy above re- ferred to. - The complaint then goes on to state that these acts have resulted in damage to the plaintift in the sum of $2500, that the defend- ants threaten to continue the commission of sald acts, that the defendants are financlally irresponsible, and the plaintiff is without any speedy, plain or adequate remedy at law. ‘Without stating at length the contents of the affidavits filed by defendants, it is sufficient to say that. whila a numhar of the allagations | BUSINESS OF EMPLOYERS AND FROM USING THE WORD “UNFAIR” Judgment Is Rendered in Superior Court in Case of Mathias Johnson Against Hotel and Restaurant Employes’ International League of America ST S Decision Declares Unlawful the Boycott and Intimi- dation, the Enticing Away of Men Called to Fill Positions Vacated by Strikersand Use of Pickets TINDER TFolicEs “PRoTEC TION S S — of the complaint are formally dented, the pa- pers on file leave certain material facts sub- stantially beyond dispute. Thus, it may be taken as admitted facts that the defendants offered to plaintiff for his signature a blank agreement containing the provisions hereinbe- fore set out; that plaintiff refused to sign the proposed agreement; that thereupon a number of the cooks and waiters theretofore working for him left his employ; that a number of men “‘picketed”’ plaintiff's places of business, walk- ing up and down in front of the same and re- Qquesting passers-by not to patronize the plain- tiff, stating that he was ‘‘unfair”’ and kept an ‘unfalr house”; that various labor unions passed rules prohibiting their members, under penalty of fine or expulsion, from patronizing the plaintiff; that transparencies and banners or nlacards. on which were inscribed reanesia | o= s not to patronize the plaintiff, were carried to and fro in front of plaintiff's restaurants. The defendants deny that any acts commiited as above stated were accompanied by any element of violence, fraud, misrepresentation, irtimi- dation or threat of any unlawful act whatever, or that they were done in pursuance of any conspiracy to coerce plaintiff to subject his business to their control. As.to the latter point, I think the only proper infereace fromn the papers before the court is that such acts as appear to have been committed were com- | mitted pursuant to a common understanding of the defendants and with their sanction and consent. On these facts various legal questions arise. The court is asked to Issue an injunction re- straining the defendants from the further com- mission of acts which are resulting in damage to plaintiff's business. The affidavits raise an issie as to the Insolvency of the defendants. Despite this I have no doubt that, so far as the acts complained of are unlawful, injunction is the proper remedy. injury complained of is not irreparable has some force in the present state of the record, but the jurisdiction of equity to enjoin a threatened wrong in order to avoid a multi- plicity of actions is well established, and finds an appropriate exercise in cases of this char- acter. Nor is it any objection to the is- suance of the writ that some of the acts complained of are criminal of- fenses. Complain of Unlawful Acts. Assuming, then, that the acts of the defend- ants, so far as they are unlawful, may be en- joined, we are met by the question, how far, i at all, are the acts complained of unlawful? Struggles between employers and employes have in recent years given rise to a considerable | The suggestion that the | it POLIGE USE THEIR GLUBS ON CROWDS Threatened Riots South of Market Quickly Quelled. Trucks Disabled by Strike Sympathizers Block Traf- fic in the Streets. PRDEES S During the Day in the Vicinity of Transfer Companies’ Barns. e USRI The police expect serious trouble with the striking teamsters when the trucks and teams attempt to leave the barns this morning. At 2:30 a. m. a large number of patrolmen were called in off their beats and sent to the barns as a precautionary measure. | | Considerablp Excitemenf Prevails | —— ETWEEN lockouts by employers | and knockouts by policemen, a busy day was spent by many strikers. The ominous looking riot club of the police officer, stripped of its red-corded trim- mings so effective on parade, was conspicuou: in plain sight and frequently descended carried | upon the head of him who refused to | move on. Sometimes the crowd was sur- | 1y, but one or two cracks on the head suf- ficed to disperse the gathering crowd. Street cars were stopped, stones were hurled, ropes on loads wer cut, nats were unscrewed from wheels and every ingenious method to annoy the drivers of recognized non-union tea | In some cases the misch Doyish _sympathizegs. | blockades of street-car traffic. occurred during the day, the result of disabled trucks that broke down on the tracks. Changes came thick and fast during the day, The first was the lookout of the boxmakers, some 500 in number, followed a few hours later by a lock-out of the beer bottlers. The packers, porters and warehousemen seemed to fear a similar fate, but no general lookout was an- nounced. The brewery workmen, who re- cently secured a conce: on the part of the employers, fear similar action on the part of the Brewers’ Protective Asso- ciation. a8 was utilized. was done by Several. serfeus Efforts to arrange a meeting between the employes of thHe Uniom Iron Works and President Henry T. Scott were not completed yesterday, but it*is expected that the meeting will be held to-day. Two o'clock is the hour set, and the men who will compose the mittee from the shop have been carefully drawn. . The iron-molders will hold a special meeting this morning at 10:30 o’clock to take actlon regarding some important de- velopments of the last few days. A mass meeting under the auspices of the Federation of Improvement Clubs is to be held and Mayor Phelan is to be asked to name a committee of 100 to in- sure the success of the proposed meeting. As soon as he can be communicated with and a date selected a hall will be en- gaged, unless conditions change for the better. But little change was observable yes- terday in the conditions affecting the lockout and strike of the teamsters. A larger number of non-union men were em- ployed and worked under the escort of police. Many are coming from interior points, attracted by the large wages now being offered. Business Agent Casey and Secretary McLaughlin of the Brotherhood of Team- sters were not around headquarters all day. It was sald they were endeavoring g torney H. W. unions, raid: “The decision simply other side contended. ders you. pose of ascertaining the views issues involved.” HUTTON SEES VICTORY FOR UNIONS. EGARDING the decision handed down by Judge Sloss, Hutton, representing the defendant labor things which I elaim they have not done. decision it does not restrain the unions from ‘pleketin: injunction prohibiting the use of the word ‘anfair’ does not meet with my approval. The word ‘unfair’ may be slanderous, as the If this is a fact its use should not have been enjoined, for there is other remedy against one who slan- I consider the decision a practical victory for the de- fendants, and if I take an appeal it will be only for the pur- ——p At restrains the unions from doing As I read the The of the Supreme Court upomn the _m-m- % number of decisions by English and American courts, and, while there is a great divergence of authority on some of the questions involved, I take it that others are settled beyond the possibility of dispute. Thus (leaving out of consideration any question of breach of con- tract) it is clear that an employe may with- draw from his employment whenever he may be dissatisfied with the remuneration or other con- attions of his employment; and that a combi- nation of employes to so withdraw is equally permissible. (Arthur vs. Oakps, 63 Fed. Rep. 310. Allen vs. Flood, 189, App. Cas. 1,°129)) On the other hand, there can be no doubt (and, indeed, It is conceded by counsel for de- fendants) that it is an actionable wrong for persons by means of violence, threats of vio- lence, Intimidation or defamatory statements Contirrued on Page Two. to effect some kind of a settlement, but that their efforts were futile. George Renner, secretary of the Dray- men's Association, In speaking of the conference proposed by the Municipal League, stated yesterday that his asso- ciation was perfectly willing and even anxious to treat with the men themselves, but that it would never consent to treat with the leaders or with the pald agi- tators. He declared that the teamsters who wanted to come back to their work could do so at the same schedule of wages that was pald before the trouble, provided that each was willing to obey orders. He stated that the employers cared not whether the men were union or Continued on Page Tweo.