The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, July 27, 1901, Page 2

2 £ THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, JULY 27. 190 THE STRIKE SITUATION BECOMES MORE COMPLEX LABOR LEADERS EXPRESS VIEWS “AS TO EFFECTS Prominent Union Men Give ldeas on Sloss’ Decision in the Case Leaders in the labor struggle freely ex- pressed last night their views of Judge Sloss’ deoision. Ed Rosenberg, secretary of the San Francisco Labor Council, gave the foliow- ing opinion: As 1 understand it, the imjunction jesued by Judge Sioss does not restrain the parties e Joined from enything they have been doing, ex- oepting the use of the word *w #sked and under injunction ask the people of this city who sy with the struggle of the cooks and waite one day’s rest in seven and @ shorier wor ot to patronize Johnson's restaurant because he op) waiters’ an_place pickets in e to inform the public As to the order re ding or indueing per tff to leave his em- of this state straining us from persus sons in the empioy ef pla ploy, thut does not enter into our acts as far as Johnsor’s employ. As to L are concerned. an employe to quit the t of his employer, Judge Sloss, in my has given a wrong decision and no doubt wiil either dissolve that part, or, if n cessary, the case will be carried to a high court. Sietion 4 of the Civil Code, prohibiting the abdution or enticement of 2 servant from his master, certainly never was meant to apply to indusuiial or mercantile calling, only to the relation of, say, a house Servant to his em- pioyer. And even ms thus applied the law is @ relic of slavery times, and no doubt has been copied into California statutes by mistake. 1f ever enforced, this part of the section would & ago have been revealed. It certainly is d to all our pr: and thought to send to jmil for asking another person to quit the emyigy of his emplo; either to go o work for the party making th¥s request or to ? y other regson made appsrent to EDITC.,R MACARTHUR'S VIEWS. n in Line With Policy Inaugu- rated by Judiciary Throughout the Country. William Macarthur, editor of the Coast Seamen’s Journal, said: 1t that Judge Sloss’ decision is in line with recent policy inaugurated by the ju- siciary of the United States and respective States to effect the abrogation of the right of workingmen to organize for the protection aid advancemert of their industrial interests. As 10 the precise details of the decision, I am nut prepared to give an opinion, as I have not yet had time to read and study it carefully, but as to its effect upon the cooks' and waiters' a tempt to improve their condition I am inclined to think that it will be very small either way. far the reason that there has grown out of the experience of the workers in the matter of government injunction a disposition to re- gard such decisions s in the light of the per- of the Judges rendering an exposition of law which the nd to respect. In other words, not belleve that the workers fssuing injur s are guided by any law, but | merely by inciination. It may be to some ex- tent by pressure of their surroundings to fur- cher the interests of the employing classes, par- ticularly when the injunction is the only means available for that purpose. At the last s of the Legislature a bill = introduced at the instance of the California State Federati Labor, representing the des unions of the State, which provided that no court should issue an injunction in any dis- pute between employer and employe restraining or any other combination of in- m doing that which they would have a perfect right to do if acting individually. The Legiclature failed to pass that bill largely bocause, as appeared from the expressions of the J ¥ o ittees of both houses, there of evidence of any marked use of ‘njunction in this State. The de- cision of Jwige Sioss will serve as evidence to e future Legiglature of the necessity of ‘such a measure. . To that extent it may be regarded @s perher s a not unqualifiéd evil © i <l @ COURT TAKES A HAND, Continued From Page Ope. %o induce workmen to leave the employ of their masten, or to prevent others from entering such employ, or to prevent 2 trader's customers or prespective customers from dealing with him. in other words, the use of means, ?hat are per se unlawful, for the ac- complishment of auy purpose that results in damage to one, gives him @ cause of action against the person or(per-onu committing the uniawfal act. Now, some of the acts alleged by the com- int to have been committed by the defend- t= are clearly unlawful in themselves. It is dent, 2iso, that the acts complained of have ed in damage to the plaintiff, and that ir furth wance would canse nim ad- The commission of such un- should, therefore, be enjoined. then, are the things which are shown tc have been done, and which are, in themselves, wrongful? In the first place it is alleged that the defendants, who do not appear to have been 1:1 ;;:ln‘mufl = employ, induced persons, who were Wrongs That Are Actionable, That is an act which, under the law of this State, is an actionable wrong. Section 49 of the Civil Code of California provides: “The rights of personal relation forbid: * * * 7The abduction or enticement of & wife from her hus- band, of a child from a parent or from a guardian entitied to its cus- fody, or of & servant from his mas- er.” Whatever may be said of the right of a work. man, acting individually, or of a number of workmen, acting i concert, to leave an em- ployment, and whatever may be the law in other jurisdictions, I think there can be no doubt “that in this State the section above quoted applies to the state of facts here pre- Sented. The plaintiff and his employes bear the relation known to the law as that of master and servant, and ome who, though mot himself & servant of plaintiff, induces his servants to ve him, violates ome of plaintiff’ ] » ff's legal Then, as to the allegation that the men walk- ing up and down in front of plaintiff’s restau. rants called out to the public in “loud and threatening tones.” Clearly, & request mot to patronize plaintiff, if such request be. uttered in such manner as to imply a threat of Violence in the event of non-compliance, is an unlawfu; act, glving rise to a cause of action if.damage result therefrom. "It is true that the defendants deny that any statements or requests were made in aught but a quiet and orderly mann This issue of fact is difficult to determine on affidavits. Without determining it at this time, I think the proper course is to restrain the ge. fendants from inducing the public, by threats express or implied, not to patronize the plain- T, since the plaintifl will suffer more damage from & continuance of such methods, if they are permitted and used, than wjll the defend. ants from the restraint thereof, w) Beve been used or not. s Unlawful to Say “Unfair.” Again, I think it is an unlawful act men engaged in this conflict. with prator ke as one of their Weapons the statament they plaintiff is “‘unfair” and that he keeps an “‘un. fair house.” § Under the Civil Code (Sec. well as under the common ya every person has the ri : tection from defams fiear ot of peo. ander,, one form of defamation, the Civil Code (eection 109 ae e tutee amed by privileged communication other than libel, which tends directly to injure (any person) in respect to his office, profession, trade or busi: ness, either by imputing to him general disqual. ification in those respects which the office or other occupetion pecullarly requiren. or by o puting something with reference to his office, profession, trade or business that has a nat. ural tendency to lessen its profit.” Can It be doubted that the statement that & man is “un. fair” and that he keeps an “‘unfair house’ tends directiy to injure him in his trade or Business: that it not cnly imputes to him die. qualification of one of the Prime requisites of any business, viz., honesty, but that it natural tendency e 1o lessen the Profit of his business? To say that & man is unfair i tially to mecuse him of disbonesty: to am that he keeps an unfalr house is equiva- alent to an aseertion that patrons of his will be likely to encounter treatment lh’::“‘i: neither fair nor honest. (See Century Diction- ary, tit. “Unfair.””) The only justification at. tenipted by defendants for the use of the word e that plaintif paid his employes less and worked them longer than the defendants think propér. But 1 see nothing in this to warrant the conclusion that plaintif's conduct was “unfair.” The regulation of wages snd condi- tlone of labor is a matter of contract between empioyer wnd_employed. As in other cases, each party seeks to make the best terms pos. sible for himself. it is no more “unfair” for an em - them | ie courts in | ing in unfair hous COOKS' AND WAITERS' ALLIANCE IS UNDISTURBED BY THE DECISION HE injunction will not prevent us from carrying on the boy- cott and employing pickets. something we have not dome and do not namely, to use viclence or unfair means to tell our friends the difference between fanir and unfair houses. At the pres- ent time we have no pickets on the strect. which will be just as eflective In preventing the public from ent- There arc no employes in the unfair houses at the present time that we want as members, so that we are not asking any one to guit thelr employers.—J. C. Lane, Pant Presi- dent Cooks’ and Waiters’ Alliaxce. It only prevents us from doing intend to do, We have a method + employe to seek to seil his labor as dearly as he ean. Courts Cannot Fix Wages. The cpurts cannot undertake to regulate con- | tracts of emplovment by saying that one scale | of wages and of hours of labor is right and another wrong or that one is fair and another unfair. In the absence of legislation, I do not see how any terms that the parties may agree upon can be denominated ‘“‘unfair.” The use | of this term by defendants and their agents | should, therefore, be enjoined. With reference to the allegation that the | acts of defendants caused crowds to collect in front of plaintiff’s restaurants and blockade | his passageways, acts having this result are unlawful and should, if there were any likeli- | hood of their continuance, be enjoined. The | complaint and affidavits taken together, how- | ever, lead me to belleve that a recurrence of the formation of such crowds is not to be feared. This brings us to the more difficult question in_the case—whether, as contended by plain- | tff, the other acts alleged to have been com- mifted by defendants are wrongful and should | be enjoined, or whether, as defendants insist, ; they have an absolute legal right to perform | the acts in question. That is to say, should | this court enjoin the defendants from, peace- | { { i ably and without violence, intimidation or false statements, requesting or persuading per- sons who might deal with plaintiff, not to deal with him, or persons who might enter into his employ, not to accept employment from him; 1frflm requesting other labor orgarizatiors to prohibit their members from dealing with | plaintiff, and, more specifically, from “picket- ing”" plaintifi's places of business with men | who request the public not to deal with plain- | tiff; from causing ‘‘sandwich-men’” to walk up and down in front of plaintiff’s restaurants | with placards, requesting the public not to Geal with plaintiff—all of these acts belng al- | Jeged to be done in pursuance of a conspiracy | to coerce plaintiff, “‘to subject his business to | the control of the defendants’ ? Tt will be observed that all of the acts hamed | are, In themselves, peaceable and lawful; that ‘ is o say, they are acts which an individual, acting by himself under the inducement of a | \ | | proper motive, might do. It is assumed that | the picketers use no threats, no intimidation, no misrepresentations. Intimidation Without Force. (I do mot overlook the fact that| threats may be made without the use of menncing words or a show | of force; that a deadly display of | Weapons is not essemtial to intimi- | dation.) | This consideration, however, is covered by the injunction which will be granted as here- | inbefore stated. It is assumed, further, and | it is obviously the fact, that the placards or | | banners carried by the ‘‘sandwich-men” con- | tain no statement which Is not either true, | as a matter of fact, or a mere declaration of | opinion, The question, then, resolves itself int> one of requests, verbal or written, by the defend- ants 1o others not to enter into busineds rela- | tions . with plaintiff, whether as customers or as employes. If such requests are unlawful, it must be because they are made for an im: | proper purpose—viz., to injure the plaintiff or to compel him to accede to certain demands— | or because a number of persons have combined | | together to make them or because of the exis- tence of both elements—viz., improper motive and combination. l'n‘nelunn-bly the business which the plaintiff is conducting is a law- ful and proper one. Unquestionably, 0, he has the right to conduct that usiness as he sees fit. Does the fact that a defendant commits an act otherwise lawful, with the intent to injure the plaintiff in the conduct of his business, render that act unlawful? Any imdividual in the city of San Francisco has a right to pat- ronize Mr. Johnson's restaurant or to refuse to patronize it as he sees fit. If he decides not to deal with the plaintiff the plaintiff has no cause of action against him. It makes no difference what his motive may be, whether it be a desire to get cheaper food or a feeling that he can get better food elsewhere, or a | dislike for the plaintiff, or a desire to injure the plaintiff. Similarly, any man whom the plaintiff may desire to employ as a waiter or a cook has an absolute right to refuse such | employment, be his reason for so doing a good one or a bad one or no reason at all. Considers Right of Action. And there can be doubt that a man may, for any proper motive (for example, trade com- | petition) advise or request a prospective cus- tomer or employe of pleintiff not to enter into business relations with him. The mere fact thet this advice or request causes damage to the plaintiff does not give him a right of ac- tion. Is the guestion affected in any way by the motive of the person giving the advice or making the request? While there is a consid- erable divergence of authority on this point, I think that, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Boyson vs. Thorn, $8 Cal. 578, the law of this State must be held to answer this question in the negative. In that case the plaintiffs had been guests at the Palace Hotel in this city. The defendant had maliciously, i. e., for the purpose of annoying and injur- ing the plaintiffs, induced the proprietor of the hotel to eject them. It was held that mo action lay against one who, from malicious motives, but without threats, vio- ience, falsehood or deception. in- duces another to violate his con- tract with the plaintiff. The court excepts from the operation of this rule cases of personal service, heretofore al- juded to as covered by Civil Code, sec. 3. It it be not actionable to induce A to break a contract with B & fortior it is not acticuable to induce A not to enter into a contract with B. In Payne vs. Western and Atlantic R. R. Co:, 13 Leéa (Tenn.) 507, cited with approval in Boyson vs. Thorn, the defendant railroad com- pany had maliciovsly, for the purpose of in- furing the plaintiff in his business, posted no- tices to the effect that any of its employes who traded with plaintiff would be discharged. This act was heild to be within the rights of the defendant-and to give no cause of action 1o plaintift. Indeed, the principle that ce:(ain acts may be done, however harmtul they may be to another and whatever the motive of the doer, & perfectly familiar one. © one would doubt that “a man has a right to set up a shop in a =mall v which ean support but one of the kind, although he expects and intends to ruin a deserving widow who is established there al- a he has right to build a honas apon hix iand in such & posi- tion aw gnfl the view from-a far more valuable house hard by.” (8 Mary. Law Rev., 3.) Motive Not Immaterial. While 1t does not follow from these examples that motive is immaterial in all cases, the Supreme Court, in Boyson vs. Thorn, seems to | have gone to the length of saying that where & man has a right to do an aci to the dam- fge of another, the fact that he was actuated by malice or any other improper motive can- not convert the lawful act into an unlawful one. Such, too, i8 the decision of the House of Lords in the recent and much discussed En- glish case of Allen vs. Flood (18%). App. Cas. 1, Where the defendant, a member of a union of boilermakers, had secured the discharge of plaintiffs (shipwrights) by their employer by representing to such employer that if the'plain- tiffs were mnot discharged the boflermakers would strike. - Held, that no action lay. But_it ix contended by plaintift that the addition of the element of conspiracy raises a different ques- tion: that, -Ithon"h one man might lawfully do any of the things under discussion, the combination of a number of men to imjure the plain- Hiff is an unlawful conspiracy, and any acts done in pursuance of that conspiracy are unlawful. It may be doubted whether, as a matter of law, a ‘‘combination of persons to do What any one of them lawfully might do by himself will make the otherwise lawful conduct unlaw- ful Holmes, J., in Vegelahn vs. Gunt Mass, 92, 107, unter, 167 But, assuming that all acts done pursuant to such combination are unlawful, if the com- bination has an unlawful purpose, what is the 1 unlawful purpose here? Tt is claimed that de- fendants conspired to ‘‘coerce plaintiff to sub- ject his business to defendant’s control.”” The fimhe result sought by defendants seems to ave been the signature by plaintiff of the form of agreement proposed by the Cooks’ and Wait- ers’ Alliance. 1 am unable to see that there is anything unlawful in proposing this agreement or endeavoring to have it entered into. In so far as it affected the scale of wages, hours and other conditions of labor, the emploves had the same right to seek to obtain conditions satis- factory to them as the employer had to seek to employ them on conditions which might suit | ent and powerful. J him. So as to the other terms of the contract, which were inserted for the purpose of secur- —_— loyer to seek to hire labor as|ing all the places in plaintiff's employ f # Dienply nn he can than it is for the; A it bers of the Cooks’ and Waiters' Alliance. Unions Wanted All the Work. In this the defendants were merely seeking to-attain the object of all forms of competl- tion, namely, the obtaining of trade for them- selves to the exclusion of others. If they could, by means peaceful and not unlawful in theméclves, induce restaurant keepers to hire employes only from the ranks of their union, the advantage which they would have obtained thereby is not, to my mind, any more unlawful than is the attempt to obtain higher wages or shorter hours. The right of traders to combine for the purpose of limiting trade in a given branch to themselves, al- though rival traders are thereby damaged, is well recognized. How does such case differ from a combina- tlon of workingmen for the purpose of limiting cmployment 4, a certain business to them- selves? 5 It is not unlawful for ship owners to form an association, agreeing to give a rebate to all shippers who deal only with members; to threaten to discharge agents who act for com- peting ship owners, and to circulate a notice that the rebate will not be allowed to persons who deal with competing ship owners. ~Mogul Steamship Company vs. McGregor (1892) App. Cas. 25; for retail lumber dealers to agree not to deal with any manufacturer or wholesale dealer who should sell lumber directly to con- sumers, Bohn Manufacturing Company ys. Hollis, 5 Minn, 223; for wholesale butchers’ to gree that each, on the request of the other, ill refuse to séll merchandise to any butcher indebted to such other, Delz vs. Winfree, Tex. % S. W. 50; or for underwriters to form an as- | sociation under an agreement providing for the regulation of premium rates, the prevention of | rebates, compensation of agents, and non-inter- course With companies that were not members of the association, Continental Insurance Com- pany vs. Board of Fire Underwriters, 67 Fed. Rep. 310. In each of these cases the result of the com- bination was to damage the plaintiff’s business; in each the motive of the defendants was to bring about a result which, In their opinion, would advance their own interests. Is not that what defendants have done here? -An Economic Struggle. The only question to be determined here is whether or not defendants have a legal right to do what they are doing; not whether their acts, viewed on grounds of ethic or propriety, meet our approval. The struggle going on be- tween plaintiff and defendants is an economic one, which, in my view, the courts should not undertake to settie unless one side or the other resorts to acts which are unlawful, In that event, those acts, and those only, should be stopped. As is sald by Holmes, J., In his dis- senting opinion in Vegelahn vs, Gunter, 167 Mass. 92, at p, 108: One of the eternal conflicts out of which life ix made up is that be- tween the effort of every man to | et the most he can for his services and that of society, disguised under the name of eapital, to get his ser- vices for the least possible return. Combination on the one side is pat- Combination on the other is the necessary and de- sirable counterpart, if the battle is to be carried on in a fair and equal way. If it be true that workingmen may combine with a view, among other things, to getting as much as they can for; their. Jabor, just as “capital may combine with a view to getting the greatest possible return, it must be true that when combined they have the same lib- erty that combined capital has to support their interests. by argument, persuasion and the be- stowal or refusal of ‘those advautagas which they otherwise lawfully control.” It i7 not to be denied. that there ix a strong line of authorities reaching a different con- | clusion on the questions here discussed. A number of cases in the Federal courts hold that combinations of workmen for the purpose of injuring or stopping the business of a plain- tiff are illegal and should be enjoined. In many of these cases the strike was accompanied by circumstances of violence and _intimidation. Such cases were Old Dominion 8. S. Co. vs. McKenna, 30 Fed. Rep., 45; Thomas vs. Cin., N. O. and T. P. Ry. Co.’ 62 Fed Rep., $03; Consolidated Steel and Wire Co. vs. Murray, §0 Fed. Rep., §11; U. S. vs. Sweeney, % Fed. Rep., 434 Debs Case Is Cited. Such, too, was In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564, in which the court, speaking through Brewer, J., says, p. 598: ‘‘The scope and purpose of the bill was only ‘to restrain forcible ob- structions of the highways along which inter- state commerce travels and the mails are car- ried.’ " Other cases in the Federal courts, how- ever, go so far as to enjoin the so-called “hoycott,” even though free from any violence or acts which are in themselves violations of law. See Casey vs. Cin. Typographical Uaion, 45 Fed. Rep., 135. In HopKins vs. Oxley Stave Co., 83 Fed. Rep., $12, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that an injunction was properly granted against a combination to compel a manufacturer to dis. continue tae use of a certain machine by re- questing customers of plaintiff, members of labor organizations_and persons in sympatny with them, not to” purchase goods manufac- tured with cuch machine. The case was de- cided by a bare majority, Caldwell, J., filing wn elaborate and vigorous dissenting opinion. A _decision similar to_the one last cited was rendered in Barr vs. Essex Trades Council (N. J.). 30 Atl. Rep., 881 In Massachusetts there have been decisions on the specific propositicns of Tying ban- ners and ‘“picketin; In Sherry vs. Perkins, 147 Mass., 212, it was held that the carrying of banners requesting persons mot to enter plaintif’s employ should be enjoined. The opinion is brief and regards the banner as a ‘“standing menace to all who were or wished to be in the employment of the plaintiffs. In that view of the facts the case is not opposed to the opinions here expressed. In Vegelahn vs. Guntner, 167 Mass., 92, it was held that an injunction should jssue against a_patrol of two men maintained in tront of plaintiff’s place of business, although the pat- Tol was dissoclated from threats of phyical in- jury to person or property. Field, C. J., and Holmes, J., dissented, the latter handing down a very able opinion which has been heretofore referred to. Cases Rightly Decided. Concerning these cases, and some others cited by plaintiff, I can merely say that they are not, in my opinion, reconcilable on principle with the Mogul Steamship Co. case and others of like character, and that I believe the cases last referred to have been rightly decided See also Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co. vs. Glass Bottle Blowers' Assn. (N. J.), 46 Atl. Rep. 258; Sinsheimer vs. U. G. W. of A., 28 N. Y. §.,'321; Davis vs. Engineers. 51 N. ¥. S., 150; Talman vs. Gaillard, 57 N. Y. 8., 419; Natlonai Prot. Assn. vs. Cumming, 65 N. Y. 8, 946, For the foregoing. reasons no injunction will be ordered except to restrain the acts which have been hercinbefore designated as unlawful. An injunction, pendente lite, will therefore issue upon plaintiff filing an undertaking in the sum of $1000, and such injunction will re- strain the defendants who have appeared, their agents, servants and employes, from persuad- ing or inducing persons in the employ of plain- Hff to leave his employ, from intimidating, by tireats, express or implied, of violence or physical harm to body or property, any per- son _or persons from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or pat- ronizing plaintiff; from preventing, or attempt- ing to prevent, by the use of the word ‘un. falr” or any other false or defamatory word or words, statement or statements, oral or written, any person or persons from entering inte the employ of the plaintiff, or from deal- ing with or patfonizing plaintifr. Court Will Hear Testimony. As the court announces in. the decision above quoted that it Is difficult to deter- mine the issue of facts on afidavits, and in view of the fact that the defendant labor unions deny that they conducted their boycott against the plaintiff or made any statements or requests in. aught but a quiet and orderly manner, Judge Sloss ordered that the injunction issue pending further litigation. The case will now go to trial on issues of fact. If from tha evidence the court determines that the defendants did conduct themselves as al- leged by the plaintiff the injunction will be made permanent, and unless overen- thusiasm leads organized labor to risk the wrath of the triul court the cry *‘unfair’ will not again ring in the ears of the plaintiff’s patrons. Epworth Leaguers and Their Friends Can go to Stockton Saturday, July 27th, attend church znd return Monday. $2.00 for the round trip. Santa Fe trains leave 7:20 a. m. 4:20 p. m. and $p. m. - LABOR COUNCIL HEARS REPORTS OF DELEGATES Conciliatory Policy s Favored for Present as Means of Settlement Although some of the more ardent trades unicn delegates in the San Fran- cisco Labor Council last night were in favor of calling out every labor union in the city, in sympathy with those now on ‘strike or locked out, wiser councils prevalled. It was decided finally to refer the troubles of each organization to the executive committee, which will have power to direct its affairs and endeavor to arrange some sort of a settlement. Under the head of reports of unions, the delegates from the Boxmakers' and Saw- vers' Union reported that their demands had been submitted to the employers on May 16, to go intq effect as soon as they were granted. They said they were sur- prised when the notices were posted in all the mills on Thursday night and were in a quandary to know what to do. It was decided that the best thing to do was to let the executive committee handle the matter. The union will meet to-night .at B'nai B'rith Hall. Secretary Wisler, who represents Ma- chinists’ Union No. 68, reported that mat- ters were “hanging fire,” and that no con- rence had as yet taken place between the_ironworkers " and their former em- ployers. President McCabe of the Iron- molders’ Union and also of the Iron Trades Council announced that there would be a special meeting of the iron- molders at their headquarters at 10:30 o’clock this morning. Delegate May, from the Journeymen Butchers’ Union, reported that those who had remained with the organization would endeavor to reorganize it thorough- l{l and would do the best they could for the present. From the City Front Federation came the statement that the executive com- mittee had decided not to engage in any sympathetic _ strike until all peaceful measures had been exhausted. The law and legislative committee called attention to an alleged Violation LZ( the franchise by the Market-street Rail- way Company in hauling loads of sand and gravel over its various electric lines for private parties. The same committee reported that the petition to Congress In reference to the continuance and exten- sion of the Chinese exclusion act was now ready for distribution. 4 Secretary Rosenberg on behalf of the executive committee reported that while the conditions at present confronting la- bor were very serious, and that many unions were threatened with lockouts, the unions did not propose to give up with- out a struggle. : : “By Saturday or Monday,” he continued, “we will know all about the situation. I think special meetings of all unions should be called as occasion demands. If goods come to vour place of business under police prc.cction, we do not want you to handle them. The water front unions are doing everything possible to preserve the peace.” Efforts will be made to ascertan whether the police now employed are re- ceiving the $2 50 a day which the charter requires for special work. esolutions declaring the action the Council will pursue were adopted and (he following officers elected: President, d\‘\'. H.d Goft; vlcginresldehtiam. ; recoyding and corresponding secrefary, gher; financial secretary, P. H. Coyle; treas- drer, J: A. Johnson; sergeant at arms, F. John- on. % ¥ O ustees—L. Bérg, Chables Schuppert, M. flle. e and legislative committee—James Bow- lan, J. K. Jones, W. Macarthur, Thomas Wright, R. L T, Ori'anlzlng committee—G. F. Aubertine, W. Cohen, J. J. Cornyn, J. J. Calish, A. Dijeau. J. T, Fogarty, J. P. Fitzsimmons, G. Gallagher, J. Gallagher, A, Gill, C.,D. Laughlin, I. Less, D. McLennon, W. R. Noonan, Miss A. Pallesan, G. F. Poulson, Lizzie Ryan, M. Wille, T. E. Zant. tive committee—M. Casey, W. W. Cof- (el;::.“ful.::s, Thomas Wright, L. Wallenstein, 3. Wille. e ot LABOR'S VIEWS ON ASSOCIATION OF EMPLOYERS Whereas, Organized labor of San Francisco and vicinity now finds it- self menaced from every quarter by a secret body known as the Employers Association with the purpose of de- stroying the trades unions, thus: deny- ing the members thereof the right to combine for their own protection and the advancement of the industrial in- terets of the community, and Whereas, The trades unions have now | and at all times in the past exerted | every possible means to insure amicable relations between employer and employe and in event of dispute to bring about a restoration of harmony by econfer- ence, conciliation and concession. and Whereas, The Employers’ Association has persistently rejected these steps and now seems determined to pursue its pol- jey of strife and destruction in wan- ton defiance not only of theWundeniable right of the workers to form and main- tain their organization, but also of the public peace and well-being, and Whereas, The dangerous and unlaw- ful motives of the Employers’ Assocla- tion is proved by its action in forcing by threats of retaliation and ruln em- ployers who are ‘well-disposed toward their employes to make unjust and im- practicable demands upon the latter with the deliberate purpose of creating a rupture between the parties; therefore t ben:lolved. That the San Franelsco Labor Council declares the Employers’ Association to be a menace to the peace and prosperity of the community; and be it further Resolved, That untfl sald Employers® Assoclation makes formal declaration of its purpose and official personnel it should be regarded as having no legal or moral right to exist and as having no claim to recognition or support from any source, public or private; and fur- ther Resolved, That the San Francisco Labor Council pledges itself and urges a like declaration by each of its con- stituent bodles to stand firm to the principles upon which we are organ- ized, the first of which is the right of workers in all callings to combine for mutual help &s individuals and as or- ganizations; and further Resolved, That we reaffirm our po- sition as favoring the adjust- ‘ment of all existing conflicts by means of conference between the parties involved or their representa- tives, and we call upon the press and public to bear witness that failing the acquiescence in this proposal by the employers concerned’ the responsibility for the continuance or expansion of the present strikes, lockouts and boycotts must be laid upon that party which has proved itself un- approachable to reason and unamen- able to the appeal of common human- ity.—Resolutiogg adopted last night by the San Franclsco Labor Council. | | | | | i “The Missouri Pacific Limited.” The only route having through sleeping car service between San Francisco and St. Louis daily. Stop-overs allowed at Salt Lake City. - For full information ask L. M. Fletcher. 126 California street. . —_—e————— “Contentment abides with truth,” says the old axiom, but few men are in a posi- tion to vouch for the truth of it _will be slight in comparison to ti — PRESIDENT McCABE Council. INSTRUCTS HIS CLIENTS. Attorney Hutton Tells Cooks’ and Waiters’ Alliance Purport of Decision. The following communications were written by H. W. Hutton, attorney for the Cooks’ and Waiters’ Alliance: SAN FRANCISCO, July 26, 1901 Ed Rosenberg Esq.—My Dear Sir: Inclosed you will find copy of a letter I sent to the Cooks' and Waiters' Alliance. The injunction rendered by Judge Sloss this morning is very mild_compared with the injunctions issued in the Eastern States. I am convinced that he had no right to issue an injunction to stop any one from using the word ‘unfair.’’ That {s an expression of an opinion, and I have the right to express my opinion about any one. That is dangerous as it stands, but it is not near as dangerous as the injunctions that were lssued by Judge Sanderson and another by Judge Garber in the brewerles and bakers’ strikes of some years ago. 2 The first part of the Injunction is based upon the following section of the Civil Code, section 49, subdivision 2, which reads: “'The rights or personal relation forbid the abauction or enticement of a wife from her husband, of & child from a parent or from a guardian entitled to its custody, or of & servant from his master.” The Supreme Court has held that there is no distinction between the word ‘‘servant’’ and the word ‘‘employe,” and I suppose that Judge Sloss thought that there was sufficlent au- thority to warrant him in issuing the injunc- tion as it now stands. On the other part about threats, etc., that is somewhat in line with the Eastern injunction: but as the cooks and waiters never used any threats, I fail to-see how it in any way affects or how it will in any way prevent them from pursuing the course that they have previously pursued against Johnsop, except merely In the use of the word ‘‘u 1 would suggest one thing; that is it might be well to find out how the Supreme Court of this State stands upon the proposition. This injunction can be appealed from. There Is nothing to stop an appeal being taken forth- with and_having the matter authoritatively decided. In the ntime the cooks and wait- ers can proceed as they have always done, leaving out the use of the word ‘unfair. Yours very truly, H. W. HUTTON. P. S.—I will add that T am convinced that on the complaint as it stands and the affidavits proposed thereto no injunction should have been issued at all, but as far as the present case goes, to wit, as it does not affect the Cooks’ and Waiters' Alliance except in the use of the word ‘unfair,”” I am glad it is 1o Se. Yours very truly, . Pkl T H. W. HUTTON. SAN FRANCISCO, July 2, 1901 Cooks’ and Waiters' Alllance No. 30—Gentle men: In the case of Johnson vs. yourself and others Judge '§loss this morning rendered an opinion, as follows: “An injunction pendente lite will therefore issue upon plaintiff filing an undertaking In the sum of $1000, and such injunction will restrain the defendants who have appeared, their agents, servants and employes from persuading or inducing persons in the employ of plaintiff to leave- his employ, from intimidating by threats, express or implied, of violence or phys- ical harm to body or property, any person or persons from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or patronizing plaintiff, from preventing or attempting to pre- vent, by the use of the word unfair or any other false or defamatory word or words, state- ment or statements, oral or written, any per- son or persons from entering into the employ of the plaint)ff or from dealing with or patron- izing plaintift.”” While I am of ‘the opinion that a court has no right to restrain a third party from peace- ably asking the employes of another to quit, still it does not affect you, as you have not been doing that, and never desired to do that. On the second proposition the court restrains you as follows: “From _intimidating by threats, express or implied, of violence or phys- ical harm, to body or property, any person or persons, from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or petronizing plaintiff’’—that is a thing you never have done, or never claimed to do, consequently that part of it does not affect you in any way. On the third proposition, where the court re- strains as follows: “From preventing or at- tempting to prevent, by the use of the word unfair or any other false or defamatory word or words, statement or statements, oral or written, any person or person from entering into the employ of the plaintiff, or from dealing with or patronizing plaintiff”—I am convinced that the court had no right to issue an injunc- tion restraining you from using the word un- fair, or any other word, but the court has doné so in this case, and it simply means that in your nlan of action against Mr. Johnson in the future you must refrain from using the word ‘‘unfair,” or any other false or defama- tory statement against him, so long as the in- Junction remains With that exception, I fail to see anything In the injunction to prevent you from proceeding, in so far as Mr. Johnson is concerned, as you have been doing from the early part of May of the present year. The court in its opinion distinctively gave to the labor organizations the right that has Been denied to them by almost all courts in the East, namely: The Judge recognizes the right of a labor organization to persuade a person from patronizing a third, maliciously or otherwise, even providad it led to the breaking up of the employer's business. The only thing that tne court has restrained In this case is what it sees fit to term “‘unlawful means,” but as long as lawful means are used the right is recognized in the opinion. Yours very truly, . H. W. al HUTTON. BOXMAKERS LOCKED OUT. Manufacturers Hasten to Anticipate Probable Demands of Workmen. The army of strikers and unemployed was greatly swelled yesterday morning, when five of the principal box factories of the city closed their doors. This action on the part of the factories was occa- sioned by the teamsters refusing to haul the goods which were made by the facto- ries. In all about 500 men were thrown out of employment. ‘When the managers of the box factorles found that they could not ship their goods nor haul lumber from the wharves nor the mills except under police protection they held a meeting and decided to close down until the adjustment of the present difficulties. The following mills are in- volved: Hobbs, Wall & Co., Commercial Box Fictory, Pacific Box Factory, Ameri- can Box Factory and the National Box Factory. Of the men who have been thrown out of employment 480 of them belong to the Box Nailers’ and Sawyers’ Union. When the fruit merchants and cannery managers learned that the box factories had closed their doors they were greatly exercised. They recognize that within a very few days they will have to close their stores and canneries if they are not able to secure boxes. The loss to the 500 men who were deprived of their g:)slt(onu e dam- age that will he done to the commission merchants of this city and the fruit grow- ers of the surrounding country. Already it has been estimated that thousands of dollars’ worth of fruit has been diverted to other markets because of the team- sters’ strike. BEER BOTTLERS NOTIFIED. Can Work at Ruling Rates of Wages, but Must Forsake Union. In all but ong cf the fifteen beer bottling establishments of this city notices were posted during the day informing the men under what conditions they would in fu- ture be required to work. The notices came as a surprise to the men, as but a few days ago new contracts based on the recently made demands were signed. The notices read as follows: PACIFIC COAST BEER BOTTLERS' , PROTE( 'E_ASSOCIATION, SAN FRANCISCO, July 25, 1901 NOTICE TO EMPLOYES—AIl union employes will please come Into office this (Friday) even- ing to be paid off in full, as we have decided to dispense with their services. From this day forward we Intend to operate our own business and operate it under the fol- lowing conditions: ‘First—We will recognize no representative or walking delegate or official of any labor union. If our men have any grievance we will adjust the same with them as individuals, but not as an_organized body. Second—We will submit to no more dictation 'WORKINGMEN TO USE THE BALLOT UDGE SLOSS’ decision is a $isappointment to me. I have seen of it I am led to the conclusion that it is only what the workingman receives all the time. While the court may have rendered his decision according to law, he has done the laboring classes an injustice. only means of securing our fair demands. course open for us in the future, and that is the ballot. workingman must therefore be on his guard and use his vote for the best interests of labor. That is nll I have to say in the mat- ter at this time.—President William MecCabe of ADVISES THE | So far as He takes away our I can see only one The the Irom Trades ———pe as to whom we shall employ or Who we shall Bt employ, and how ‘we shail run our busi- ness. Any of our employes who desire to come to work to-morrow morning at the sime wages and terms at present existing may do so, but with the distinct understanding that we are run- ning our own business, and recognizing no more: labor unifons. About one hundred men are affected by this order. The beer bottling establish- ments are separate from the breweries ex- cept in one instance, and in this place no notice was posted. This establishment em- ploys about twenty-five men. A meeting of thé executive council of the Brewery Workmen's Union was held last night, and it was decided that all the men should return to work in the morning. If they were asked whether they were union men they were instructed to answer in the af- firmative. If they were asked further to obey the instructions contained in the circular letter of their employers they were instructed to refuse employment un- der any other conditiors than those em- bodied in the agreement signed last week. This movement is sald to foreshadow a similar movement on the part of the other branches of the brewery business, and in- dicates the course that will be pursued. It is expected that the notices to the other branches of the trade will be posted as soon as the effect on the beer bottlers is ascertained. RN Draymen’s Association Offers Bonus. The Draymen's Association is making determined efforts to defeat the strike and to improve the business conditions during its existence. The association is willing o offer teamsters $4 a day, with a bonus of $1 for any teamster who will go to work and remain with his employer until the final settlement.of the trouble. A cir- cular which is signed by George Renner, manager of the Draymen's Association, is being sent to all the members of the asso- ciation. It reads as follows: The Draymen’s Association has arranged to have, at room 5, 109 California street, & team- sters’ independent employment bureau, where all applicants for positions as drivers will be registered, and where members- of this asso- ciation may apply for such help as they need, Please send to the above bureau at once the names of all drivers at present employed, and state which days they have worked, com- mencing Monday, July 22. Also send to the same office, each day, a report of new drivers employed, glving namies, and also the names of sach as have quit. Correct attention to the above is necessary, to keep account of the bonus to be paid to all drivers commencing with Monday, July 22. During the present difficulty, and until fur- ther notice, the wages for drivers of trucks and large wagons shall be $4 per day, with the bonus of §1 per day for those who stay through the entirgs trouble. Small wagons, the same schedule of wages as prior to strike, with the same bonus. must be made clear to each driver that, as svon as the trouble is over, the wages will be the same as in the past. The members of this association will receive a refund from the Employers’ Associa- tion, through me, of the $1 bonus and the $1 paid In excess of regular wages. The drivers’ names must have been registered in the employment bureau and reports made regularly of their employment. As soon as you have an opportunity, please call at the above office address and 'consult with the manager there regarding employment of men. GEORGE RENNER, Manager Draymen's Association. @ il e FOLICE USE THEIR CLUBS ONCAONDS Continued From Page One. non-ugion so long as they did their work properly. The unrest and unnatural tension which has existed among the porters and pack- ers since the lnCeFtlon of the teamsters’ strike was greatly increased yesterday morning, when it was learned that the Standard Oil Company had discharged twenty-two of their warehouse men for refusirg to load and unload trucks driven by clerks who had replaced the striking teamsters. One of the wagons which they were required to load was driven by a “scab.” The feeling of unrest and dis- satisfaction was intensified when it was ascertained later in the day that the Fed- eral Salt Company had discharged four men for refusing to load a boat at the Hathaway wharf in conjunction with “scab” stevedores. There was a general walk-out on the schoonér, and the vessel is now tied up at the wharf with half of the load of salt still on hoard. Upon the developments of the situation within the next twenty-four hours de- pends the question whether the Porters’, Packers’ and Warehousemen's Associa- tion, with its aggregate membership of 2200 men, will go out. The men are all prepared and in some cases are even anx- ious to go cut. At a special meeting held last night at California Hall, on Bush street, the leaders of the Labor Council restrained them with difficulty from de- claring an immediate strike. At the most, action was only postponed until Sunday afternoon, when a second special meeting will be held. If-before that time the peace committees and conferences have not accomplished something toward the settlement of the labor troubles a strike is certain. ‘The meeting which was held last night was called for the purpose of considering the best policy to pursue in the cases of merchants who have discharged their men for refusing to do seab work or work which was prohibited to them by their union rules. The men met with the purpose of declaring for an immediate strike. They feared that if action was longer delayed the merchants would dis- charge every union man in their employ, asg it has been generally reported that the merchants intend to take such steps. Their action for the past few days cer- tainly give weight to such inference. More strikes at the present time are not desired by the Laber Council, and J. D. Pierce of the American Federation of La- bor and the executive committee of the Labor Council -vere on hand last night to dissuade the Porters, Packers and Ware- housemen from taking immediate action. The members of the executive committee and Mr. Plerce made strong pleas for the deferment of action until after the peace committees have an opportunity to act to- day. Any delay was exceedingly disap- pointing to the majority of the associa- tion, and many of the members made strong appeals against it. A resolution, kowever, was finally passed putting off action until Sunday afternoon, when a re- port will be received from the City Front Federation as to the advisability of a joint strike. The resolution carried with it the proviso that if before Sunday afternoon conditions had not been bettered the Por- ters, Packers and Warehousemen should ?repare to go on a strike Monday morn- ng. ‘When a man offers you something for nothing it will pay you to walk around it by the farthest possible route. Salt Rheum Yo':: may call it eczema, tetter or milk But no matter what you call it, this skin disease which comes in plk:hes'ihn burn, itch, discharge a watery matter. dry and scale, owes its existence to the presence of humors in the system. It will continue to exist, annoy, and haps agonize, as long as these hnmonm 1t is always radically and permanently cured by - Hood’s Sarsaparilla ‘which expels all humors, and is i s positively ACGIDENTS PLENTIFUL IN STRIKE REGION The PoIi;:e—Use Their Clubs Freely, and Non- Union Men Are Beaten All day yesterday the police officers in the business districts, about the wharves, the railroad sheds and the southern por- tion of the city where the majority of tle stables of the leading draying firms arc located had i busy time of it. Mounicd on horses, riding on express wagons, drays and trucks, with riot clubs plainiy in view, they spent the day in prote property in transit or dispersing gat g crowds. One of the favorite tricks of the locked- out teamsters or their sympathizers Is to unscrew the nuts of wagons and drays. = In many instances wheels droppe at the most inopportune time. AL Fo and Harrison streets early yesterday morning an accident of this kind occur- red. A police officer was on the seat and was nearly thrown into the street. As the street cars were stopped a great crowd gathered and in a few minutes the street was crowded with people. It was not until additional reinforcements were received that tarfic could be resumed. Later in the day similar accidents oc- curred at Fifth and Bryant, Sixth ‘and Bluxome streets and many other points. ‘About 5 o’clock, while one of the Stet- son-Renner Draying Company’s teams Was returning to the barn on Fifth street, rear Harrison, just as it was turning out of the track to go in the hind wheel came off. A large crowd was gathered along the sidewalk d Sergeant Bush charged them single haflded. With his club swing- ing without regard to age or sex, he struck one woman a glancing blow on the shoulder. She fell to the ground, but was picked up by some companions and hur- ried away. Any one who refused to move on felt the force of a police officer’s club. Mounted officers rode down the side- walk, scattering every crowd that col- lected. The same plan was pursued on other streets where the teamsters. have been in the habit of congregating. No one was allowed to stand about the cor- ners of any of the streets. Captain Witt- man sent a large force of officers into the district and will have all his force on hand to-day. Paul Caraffa, a helper for James Rossi- ter & Co., draymen, was assaulted by striking teamsters last evening at Rincon and Harrison streets and rendered uncon- scious. Harry Rossiter was driving one of the trucks under police protection and Caraffa was on the vehicle. At First and Bryant streets the pole of the truck broke and Rossiter sent Caraffa with a pair of the horses to the stables. A crowd of striking teamsters followed Caraffa and made an attack upon him. He was bru- tally beaten and left unconscious in the middle of the car track and narrowly es- caped being run over by an electric car. The traces of the horses in Caraffa’'s charge were cut and the animals gal- loped along the street until caught by a Chinese. Caraffa will swear to a complaint to-day and ask the police to arrest the men who assaulted him. Three of the many men who wers clubbed and beaten by licemen and strikers were treated at the Emergency Hospital last night. Adolph Thiler, a cabinet maker who lives at 29 Bruce place, became mixed up in a crowd at Fifth and Bryant streets and felt the weight of ine policeman’s ciub on his eranium. He was taken to the hospital and treated. R. Bishop and J. E. Estes also suffered. The former allowed his_curiosity to get the better of him and as he failed to move fast enough received a blow on the head to accelerate his speed. He does " not blame the officer who struck the blow. Estes is one of the men imported from Los Angeles. He was in the vicinity of Ellis and Mason streets and a _striker came behind him and pummeled him for being a ‘‘scab.” John H. Stiles, a striking teamster, was arrested yvesterday afternoon by Police- men Smith and Hooper and booked at the City Prison on charges of malicious mis- chief and disturbing the peace. He broke a window in a grocery at Third and Bry- ant streets and raised a disturbance by abusing a_ teamster who was driving the team he formerly handled. He tried to escape, but was pursued and captured by the two officers. ADVERTISEMENTS. Pears’ Pretty boxes and odors are used to' sell such soaps as no one would touch if he saw them un- disguised. Beware of a soap: that depends - on something outside of it. Pears’, the finest soap in the world is scented or not, as you wish; and the money is in the merchan- dise, not in the box. All sorts of stores sell it, especially druggists; all sorts of people are using it. « OR.MEVERS & CO. Specialist. Disease and weakness of men. Established 1881, Consultation and private book free, at office or by mail. Cures guar- anteed. 731 Mar- ket street (eleva- tor entrance), San Francisco. IDNEY &.LIV BITTERS A PLEASNT LAXATIVE NOT INTOXICATING