of interfering with and preventing plaintiffs from carrying on their business. The answering affidavits deny that any such payments were made for the purpose of continuing organized, concerted and combined action on the part of said former employees of plaintiffs, with the object and purpose of interfering with and preventing the plaintiffs from carrying on their business. But they admit that such payments had been made for the purpose of assisting the employees of the plaintiffs in making their strike a success. I am of the opinion from the evidence that the object of making such payments was not to interfere with plaintiffs' business, but to assist the strikers by helping to support them during this strike, and I do not think that such payments for that purpose are unlawful. It follows from the above views that the application to continue the injunction must be wholly denied, with $10 costs." The firm of Kerbs, Wertheim & Schiffer also obtained a temporary injunction restraining the Cigar Makers' International Union and others from committing alleged overt acts in picketing the factory of that concern. As in the suit of Levy & Co. against the same defendants the claim was made by the plaintiffs that the labor unions were "organized to compel the employment of members of said associations exclusively by all manufacturers of cigars, and to plan, advise, assist and carry on strikes and boycotts against manufacturers who refuse to accede to the demands of such associations." Appearing before Justice Fitzgerald, in Part I of the New York Supreme Court, to show cause why this injunction should not be continued, the defendants positively denied the foregoing allegations, but they made affidavit that their unions were formed to "advance the mutual interests of the members by endeavoring to procure employment for them by means of proper and lawful contracts made with manufacturers by which such members can receive employment at a certain fair and just scale of wages, and under conditions satisfactory to both manufacturers and members." The picketing and patrolling were acknowledged by the defendants, but they averred that in so doing they did not violate any law. The Court in denying the application to make the injunction permanent, remarks that "the alleged assaults and acts of disorderly conduct are squarely and positively denied, nor does it appear that any complaints were made to the police, or that any person was arrested.” The Justice further declares that "our law recognizes the right of men and women to work or not to work as interests or fancy may incline them, and if any number of employees determine to strike there is nothing unlawful in their doing so. If by combination they can obtain shorter hours or higher wages, or in any other way advance their material interests, they may do so, and to advance their purposes they are free to strive to win over others to their support; by reason, arguments and proper appeal." Justice Fitzgerald's decision follows: "The plaintiff moves to continue and make permanent until final judgment in this action the injunction restraining the defendants from doing certain alleged unlawful acts set forth in the affidavits upon which the order to show cause was granted. The material question as to the truth of the allegations of the moving affidavits is raised upon the return by the sworn denials submitted upon the part of the defendants. Many of the material averments in the complaint and of the supporting affidavits are stated upon information and brief. Among these is the charge that 'the Cigars Makers' International Union of America and Local Union No. 144 (of which certain of the defendants are officers or members) are organized to compel the employment of members of said associations exclusively by all manufacturers of cigars, and to plan, advise, assist and carry on strikes and boycotts against manufacturers who refuse to accede to the demands of such associations.' This allegation, made upon information and belief only, is positively denied by the affidavits read in opposition, of the accused persons, who state that the objects of the associations mentioned are 'to advance the mutual interests of the members by endeavoring to procure employment for them by means of proper and lawful contracts made with manufacturers by which such members can receive employment at a certain fair and just scale of wages, and under conditions satisfactory to both manufacturers and members.' The statement, on information and belief, also in the complaint, that on the 9th day of March, 1900, plaintiffs' employees, under the instructions and by the advice and with the consent and connivance of certain of the unions, left the plaintiffs' employ and went on strike,' is not only absolutely denied by these officers, but their denials are fortified by affidavits of many of the striking employees (four-fifths of whom were not members of the union), giving as their reason for quitting work the refusal of plaintiffs to furnish better stock; that by reason of this refusal, and of the poor grade of stock furnished, a longer time was required to make a cigar, and their wages were thereby materially decreased, making it impossible for them to make a living.' This statement is not denied by anyone on the part of the plaintiffs. The alleged assaults and acts of disorderly conduct are squarely and positively denied; nor does it appear that any complaints were made to the police, or that any person was arrested. The patrolling and picketing is frankly avowed by four girls and one man, and the candor of the avowal is creditable to the truthfulness of the affiants. The first question raised is the purely legal one: whether picketing is of itself unlawful, for if it should be held so the plaintiffs would be entitled, as matter of right, to have this injunction made permanent. Our law recognizes the right of men and women to work or not to work as interests or fancy may incline them, and if any number of employees determine to strike, there is nothing unlawful in their doing so. If by combination they can obtain shorter hours or higher wages, or in any other way advance their material interests, they may do so, and to advance their purpose they are free to strive to win over others to their support by reason, arguments and proper appeal. 'Argument, reasoning and entreaty are lawful weapons' (People v. Kostka, 4 N. Y. Crim. Rep., 435; People vs. Nilzig, 4 Id., 418). They must not attempt to coerce by threat, menace or intimidation, either employer, coemployee or person willing to work under the conditions which are repugnant to the strikers. They may combine in defense of their own rights, but they must not infringe the rights of others. This question of picketing has been discussed in a great many cases, all of which I have most carefully considered, and I cannot find nor have I been referred to any adjudications in this State holding that mere patrolling of a neighborhood by some few persons has been declared unlawful. In Rogers vs. Evarts (17 N. Y. Supp., 264) the court in dismissing the complaint said: "The right to combine involves of necessity the right to persuade all colaborers to join in the combination. This right to persuade colaborers involves the right to persuade new employees to join the combination.' In using this language the matter of picketing was under consideration, because further on we find the following: 'Picketing may be done in such numbers as to constitute intimidation.' The same subject was considered by the court at Special Term in the case of Reynolds vs. Everett (67 Hun, 299), and an injunction restraining defendants from picketing plaintiff's factory was refused. In Davis vs. Zimmerman (91 Hun, 489), relied upon by plaintiff, menace, threat and attack, in the light of the opinion, must have been abundantly established by the proof. I have studied with care the record of the Sun Printing and Publishing Association vs. Delaney, and the decision of the learned Appellate Division was that the record disclosed sufficient facts to warrant the exercise of the court's discretion in continuing the injunction, but upon examination I find that the Special Term order was modified by the insertion of the words 'in such manner as to express or imply a threat, intimidation, coercion or force' in two places in the order. This amounts to a declaration that such unlawful elements were consistent with the proof and should be embodied in the order so as to unmistakably indicate that the acts enjoined were unlawful acts. In the matter of Levy vs. Rosenstein (Law Journal, May 31, 1900) Mr. Justice Andrews discusses the matter of loitering, patrolling and picketing, and holds such acts not to be unlawful or ground for an injunction unless accompanied by menace, threat or intimidation. Motion to continue injunction denied, with $10 costs." TRADE UNION BENEFITS. The April number of the Cigar Makers' Official Journal publishes statistics of the various benefits paid during the last twenty years by the Cigar Makers' International Union of America, which are reproduced herewith. A grand total of $4,326,845.39 was paid in benefits from 1879 to 1899, of which $281,381.86 was in 1899. Commenting editorially the Journal states that on the basis of a total membership of 28,994 at the end of December it cost $8.87 per member for the year, or 173 cents per week per member, to pay the strike, sick, death and out-of-work benefits. Attention is also called to the large falling off in strike and out-ofwork benefits last year as compared with 1898, both highly significant of improved trade conditions. Below may also be seen the financial statement for all local unions in 1899, showing over half a million of receipts and an increase in funds on hand at the close of the year of nearly $65,000. |