Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/87

 68

THE GREEN BAG

is then considered that the fact that the business of plaintiff was destroyed by the acts of defen dants is not decisive of the illegality of them, and reference is made to Martell v. White, 185 Mass. 255, 69 N. E. 1085, 64 L. R. A. 260, 102 Am. St. Rep. 341, where it was said in regard to the right of a citizen to pursue his business without inter ference by a combination to destroy it that, speaking generally, competition in business is to be permitted, although frequently disastrous to those engaged in it. " It is always selfish, often sharp, and sometimes deadly." As concerns the strike of the union bricklayers and stone masons employed by the contractor on other buildings because the contractor was doing work on a build ing on which work was being done by pointers employed by the owners thereof, it is held that such strike was unlawful, in that it contained an element similar to a sympathetic strike, a boycott, and a blacklisting, namely: " It is a refusal to work for A, with whom the strikers have no dis pute, because A works for B with whom the strikers have a dispute, for the purpose of forcing A to force B to yield to the strikers' demands. ... It is a combination by the union to obtain a decision in their favor by forcing third persons who have no interest in the dispute to force the employer to decide the dispute in the unions' favor." The conclusion is then reached that

such a strike is not a justifiable interference with the right of the pointers to pursue their calling, and that the right of organized labor to coerce is limited to strikes on persons with whom the organization has a trade dispute, and the court remarks that only two cases to the contrary have been cited, namely, Bohn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 232, 55 N. W. 119, 21 L. R. A. 337, 40 Am. St. Rep. 319, and Clothing Co. v. Watson, 168 Mo. 133, 67 S. W. 391, 56 L. R. A. 951, 90 Am. St. Rep. 440, and that the first was overruled in Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663, 632 R. A. 753, 103 Am. St. R?p. 477. The conclusion reached is supported by a large number of authorities, including My Maryland Lodge v. Adt, 100 Md. 238, 59 Atl. 721, 68 L. R. A. 752; Gray v. Building Trades Council, 91 Minn. 171, 97 N. W. 663, 63 L. R. A. 753, 103 Am. St. Rep. 477; Purington v. Hinchliff (Ill.) 76 X. E. 47, 2 L. R. A. (N. S.) 824; Beck v. Railway Teamsters' Protective Union, 118 Mich. 497, 77 N. W. 13, 42 L. R. A. 407, 74 Am. St. Rep. 421; Crump v. Commonwealth, 84 Va. 927, 6 S. E. 620, 10 Am. St. Rep. 895; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. 890, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23; Purvis v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters (Pa.) 63 Atl. 585; Gatzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. 1, 81 N. W. 1003, 49 L. R. A. 475, 80 Am. St. Rep. 1; Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101, 30 Atl. 881.