The fundamental weakness of his somewhat haphazard discussion of the case in question seems to be due to a lack of appreciation of obvious economic principles. In a competitive system it is inevitable that in all economic contests one person or set of persons must profit at the expense of another. He concedes that it is commendable for the workingmen to strive to better their conditions, but demands that no one shall receive the slightest injury in this struggle to right wrongs or obtain a larger share in the profits of business, or more favorable conditions of work. He says of these efforts of trade unionists, "They must not undertake to accomplish what they desire to the injury or at the expense of other people, and there is where the mistake is too often made. It is conceded by all that they have the right to better their condition, but they must not do it in a way to be oppressive of others. I think that is what they have attempted to do in this case. Perhaps they have not so intended, but the question is as to the results of their acts. Beyond any question, what they are trying to do would be oppressive of the business of these complainants. ''115

Among the acts specified as unlawful interference with the business of complainants was the circulation of notices which merely stated that certain saloon keepers were handling the boycotted beer, because it was claimed that such notices would intimidate these people and prevent them dealing in the beer. He said, "It must be remembered that there are many timid people in this world, who would be much influenced by danger of even small losses. I have no doubt that many of these men who have this notice would fear that by continuing to engage in the selling of the beer there would be some loss to them, and that far it would hurt their business." Of the use of the term "unfair" he said, "Of course it does not say to the laboring people, 'You shall not drink' such beer, but it says: 'To Organized Labor and Friends: Don't use this beer!' These organizations, in the way they are trained, for they are as well trained as any military force, understand these rules and know what they mean. The very use of the term 'unfair' has a distinct

115 Seattle Brewing and Malting Co. v. Hansen, 144 Fed. Rep. 1013.

meaning to them, and it is in the nature of a direction to the members of these organizations not to use that beer, and it is also an intimidation to those who are dealing in it." He considered that such notices tended to obstruct unfairly the business of the complainant, and that it was the duty of the court to restrain the defendants from "doing anything that will interfere with the complainant's business."'116

The protectorate thus established was quite general in its character. The injunction was to be enforced against the members of the labor organizations and their associates without service of summons upon all of them. The judge directed that the writ of injunction should, in its terms, follow the precedent set in the case of Loewe v. California State Federation of Labor, and be directed to these organizations and then to different individuals named as members of the organizations, and also to include their attorneys, agents, employees, and all persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with them.

The more recent injunction issued by Judge Morrow in the case of the Hammond Lumber Co. v. Sailors' Union of the Pacific et al.117 is less general in its application, yet the defendants are restrained not only from boarding the vessels of the plaintiff and from threats of bodily harm to his employees, but also from "in any wise interfering" with the crews or business of complainant. This case was appealed to the United States Circuit of Appeals, where the decision of the lower court in issuing the injunction was sustained. An unsuccessful attempt was made to have the decision reviewed in the United States Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari.

SUMMARY OF THE CALIFORNIA INJUNCTION CASES.

This review of the California decisions between 1901 and 1906 shows the remarkable and rapid development in the use of the injunction to restrain trade-union activities. The decisions strike at what is most fundamental in the labor movement, that is, the efforts to enlist numbers of workingmen in controversies

116 Seattle Brewing and Malting Co., 144 Fed. Rep. 1014. 117 149 Fed. Rep. 577; appealed, 208 U. S. 615.

with accumulated wealth. The actions enjoined are not generally those of the small group immediately concerned, but those which enlist the sympathy of the public, or of the larger group of organized workers, in support of some smaller body of tradeunionists.

The injunctions have been so general in their terms that it is easier to state the few remaining forms of trade-union activity which the courts still permit, than to attempt a summary of prohibited actions.

The efforts to enjoin the strike have been declared unconstitutional in the United States Supreme Court, so the right of the workman to quit work, whenever and for whatever cause he sees fit, has been fully established.

The right of peaceful persuasion is allowed, though the value of this concession is not great, since the means and opportunities for persuasion are held subject to injunction. The press furnishes the modern means of communication and persuasion, and its use in convincing the public, or even in notifying those already pledged to the support of their fellow-workers, has been repeatedly enjoined. The courts have also decided that oral persuasion must not take place on the public highway in the vicinity of the place of business concerned in the controversy. If properly introduced, and at a sufficient distance, it seems probable that this right may still be exercised.

The use of labels to advertise work done under good conditions, and their advertisement has not been enjoined.

This effort to restrain the activities of the California tradeunions has been purely judicial; the state legislature has repeatedly refused to pass measures for this purpose. We have already noticed the repeal of the section of the Civil Code which made the enticement of a servant unlawful, and the passage of the act of 1903 restraining the use of the injunction. In 1891 and again in 1905 vigorous efforts were made to pass antiboycott laws. The first of these bills was endorsed by the Sacramento Chamber of Commerce,118 and favored by many prominent San Francisco business men. A mass meeting was held in

118 Alta, February 13, 1891, p. 5.

San Francisco under the auspices of the Federated Trades Council to oppose the passage of the measure,119 and a special representative was sent to Sacramento to assist in securing its defeat. The later bill was modeled on the Alabama anti-boycott law, and was supposed to have been presented through the efforts of the Citizens' Alliance. It was also defeated by the efforts of the labor organizations.

119 Ibid., p. 8. Report of mass meeting. See also the report of the meeting of the Federated Trades Council, February 21.

CHAPTER XX.

REVIEW SUMMARY.

In the previous chapters of this book we have reviewed sixty years of the organized activities of the wage-workers of California in defense of what they have regarded as their economic rights and interests. Two conditions present to an unusual degree in California give this record peculiar interest: First, these organized efforts to protect and benefit the working classes have been made in an exceeding favorable environment; and second, employer and employee started with a more equal division of power than has ever been possible in the other great industrial centers of this country.

As one goes more carefully into the actual history of this important section of the American labor movement, its thoroughly democratic character becomes evident. The claim that these activities have been the product of the agitations of discontented, foreign-mostly Irish-demagogues is utterly superficial, and entirely unsupported by the facts of history. Leadership is of course necessary in any social movement, but the history of the efforts by which the labor laws were passed certainly proves that there has been no lack of activity and enthusiastic support on the part of the rank and file. Instances where the California trade-unionists have appeared fickle and ungrateful in their repudiation of once-powerful leaders indicate that their allegiance has been given to the cause rather than to the man representing it. It is hard to decide who among the early inhabitants of San Francisco were most entitled to be called foreigners. The newly arrived Americans from the other side of the continent no doubt felt that the native-born Spaniards or Mexicans were foreigners. The great rush for the gold fields brought people from every nation. The leadership of the labor movement has been, like that of other activities of the state, quite cosmopolitan. Among those who have been most influential we find native-born Americans, Englishmen, Scotchmen,