United States v. Industrial Ass'n of San Francisco

• Decision Date: 09 November 1923
• Docket Number: 1044.
• Citation: 293 F. 925
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. INDUSTRIAL ASS'N OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.

293 F. 925

UNITED STATES v. INDUSTRIAL ASS'N OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.

No. 1044.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

November 9, 1923

John T Williams, U.S. Atty., of San Francisco, Cal., A. T. Seymour Asst. Atty. Gen., Henry A. Guiler and James Raleigh Kelly Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., and H. H. Atkinson, Sp. Asst. U.S Atty., of Tonopah, Nev., for the United States.

Max J. Kuhl, of San Francisco, Cal., for certain defendants.

DOOLING District Judge.

This is an action in equity to restrain the defendants from further executing an alleged conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce and to dissolve certain of the alleged conspirators for the more thorough attainment of the objects of the suit. The defendants named are about 40 in number, among them the Builders' Exchange and the Industrial Association of San Francisco, together with corporations, individuals, and partnerships belonging to each. The evidence was presented in the form of many voluminous affidavits, letters and records, in addition to a transcript of the testimony taken in the state court upon a prosecution of the defendants for claimed violations of the Cartright Act (St. Cal., 1907, p. 984, amended by St. 1909, p. 593).

From all this mass of evidence, much of it contradictory, certain facts stand clearly forth. The first is that the defendants are acting in concert for the purpose of putting into effect and maintaining what is by them designated the 'American plan' in the building industry in San Francisco and some of its neighboring counties. The American plan contemplates the employment of union and nonunion men in equal proportions, with a nonunion foreman on each job. With the merits or demerits of this plan, as with the recurring conflicts between employers and labor unions, this court, acting within its jurisdiction, cannot lawfully be concerned. It is only when either side contravenes some federal law that the power of the court may be invoked, and then only to such extent as may be necessary to prevent such contravention, or to punish those involved in it. The purpose of the defendants, therefore, in so far as it may be sought or attained without running counter to the federal laws, cannot be interfered with by a federal court. But if, even in attaining an end with which the court cannot concern itself, such means are employed as the federal laws condemn, the court will, in the exercise of its lawful power, enjoin or dissolve as the necessities of the case may require.

And this brings us to the second fact that the evidence clearly shows, and that is that the so-called permit system is the principal means by which the concerted action of the defendants is rendered effective. Under this system no one can purchase the building materials covered thereby without obtaining a permit from the permit bureau of the Builders' Exchange, and no one can secure such permit who will not pledge himself to run his job on the American plan. Under the permit system were first placed cement, lime plaster, ready-mixed mortar, rock, sand, and gravel, common brick, fire and face brick, terra cotta, and all clay products. Defendants disavow any intention to interfere with interstate commerce,...