The Daily Morning Journal And Courier

HEAVY BLOW DEALT AT
UNION LABOR BY COURT

DECISION

FOR $25,000 RENDERED AGAINST TRADES LABOR COUNCIL

Holds Illegal the Contract Exacted From the Racine, Wis., Boss Bakers—The Council and the Individual Members Are Enjoined From Using the Unfair List—Boycott an Actionable Conspiracy.

Racine, Wis., Aug. 28.—Union labor was to-day dealt a heavy blow by the decision of Circuit Court Judge Chester A. Fowler, of Fond Du Lac, in the boycott suit for $25,000 damages brought by Otto B. Schultz, a Racine baker, against the Trades Labor council, Benjamin Dressen and others. The decision holds illegal the contract exacted from the boss bakers by the union men in an effort to enforce the closed shop. The trades council and the individual members are enjoined from using the "unfair list." The boycott is declared an actionable conspiracy to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose: Schultz is allowed to recover damages of $2,500 for the loss of profits from the time of the commencement of the boycotting acts up to the time of the trial, and $3,500 in damages for the amount of injury to his business and property in relation to its selling value. The decision, in part, is as follows:

"All boss bakers of the city signed this agreement except the plaintiff, who has steadfastly refused to do so. Upon the plaintiff's refusing to sign, concerted attack upon his business was begun by organized labor with the object and purpose of compelling him, against his will, to sign the contract, and has been maintained with more or less vigor up to the present time.

"The plaintiff has suffered a permanent and all but destructive injury to his business, which has been caused by the combined acts and the attitude of organized labor.

"An injury to one's business and trade is on the same footing as an injury to his tangible property, and the law furnishes a remedy for one as well as the other."

The court declares that the contract the union sought to force on the boss bakers was in itself an illegal contract, in that it would, by its terms, obligate the plaintiff to employ union labor only as distinguished from non-union labor; and it would obligate him to maintain a "closed" as distinguished from an "open" shop.