Coeur d'Alene Consolidated & Mining Co. v. Miners' Union of Wardner

• Decision Date: 11 July 1892
• Citation: 51 F. 260
• Parties: COEUR D'ALENE CONSOLIDATED & MINING CO. v. MINERS' UNION OF WARDNER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Idaho

51 F. 260

COEUR D'ALENE CONSOLIDATED & MINING CO. v. MINERS' UNION OF WARDNER et al.

United States Circuit Court, D. Idaho.

July 11, 1892

Albert Hagan and W. B. Heyburn for complainant.

Frank Ganahl and James H. Hawley, for defendants.

BEATTY District Judge.

The local interest manifested in this cause, and its possible consequences, justify a somewhat extended statement of the facts and reasons for the conclusion reached, and, while all the questions raised by counsel, who have so ably and fully presented the matter, have been considered, apology will not be offered for a failure to here elaborately review them. The bill and affidavits accompanying it show that complainant is a foreign corporation; that defendant companies are corporations and associations organized under the laws of Idaho, and the other defendants citizens of said state; that through defendants' wrongful acts, complainant has been damaged in the sum of $50,000; that complainant owns valuable mining property in Shoshone county, Idaho, which it desires to work; that defendants having conspired together, have organized themselves into the several miners' unions named, for the purpose not only of controlling and dictating the wages to be paid them, but also by means of menace and force to prevent all persons not members of such unions from working for complainant; that, to make efficient such organizations, they are bound by stringent oaths to secrecy and to obedience to all edicts and commands of either of such unions; that since the formation of such unions the members thereof have adopted a systematic course of threats and intimidations against complainant, and any miners desiring to work for it who are not members of such unions; that they have notified complainant that it must employ none but those who belong to such orders, and at the wages fixed by the latter; that they have entered upon complainant's mines and by force removed therefrom its employes, and given out and threatened that they would continue to prevent any but the members of such unions from working therein; that by reason of the premises complainant has been compelled to cease work; that all the defendants are utterly insolvent and unable to respond in damages; that by the affidavits of two of complainant's employes, it appears that on the 29th day of last April about a hundred men, headed by defendant John Tobin, went to complainant's mine, where affiants were at work, and forcibly ejected them therefrom, took them to the Miners' Union Hall, at Burke, where, in the presence of a large number of men, it was demanded they should join the union or leave the camp; that upon their refusal to do either it was ordered by the meeting that they be marched out of the state; that thereupon they were escorted in the direction of Thompson Falls, Mont., by at least 200 men, who beat oil cans in imitation of drums; that they were called 'scabs,' and coarse indignities were frequently heaped upon them; that in this manner they were driven from the state, denied the privilege of purchasing food, and for two days were without any, and exposed to the inclemency of the weather in crossing a snowy range into the state of Montana. Upon these and similar allegations contained in said complaint and affidavits, it was ordered that the defendants be restrained from entering upon complainant's mines, or from interfering with the working thereof, or by the use of force, threats, or intimidations, or by other means, from interfering with or preventing complainant's employes from working upon its mines; and that the defendants show cause why they should not be so restrained pending this action.

In response to such order defendants have by numerous affidavits denied most of such allegations, and especially those charging a resort to threats or force to accomplish the object of their several associations, which they state are for the purpose of protecting themselves against the exactions of employers, of maintaining their wages, of elevating the standard of labor by admission to their order only of these who are skilled workmen and of good morals, to alleviate the sufferings of those overtaken by sickness or accident, and in various ways, and by all lawful means, to advance the interests of miners, and to this end, intemperance, immorality, and the vices of life are discouraged. In rebutting such affidavits the complainant has produced others, which charge the existence of a most alarming and demoralizing state of society, wherein a reign of riot, terror, and lawlessness has supplanted industry, peace, and law; but such specific acts and matter stated in the rebutting affidavits, which defendants could not, from complainant's original showing, so anticipate as to deny, are not treated as established. However, the evidence justifies the conclusion that defendants are organized into associations wherein submission to stringent and arbitrary rules is required; that by means approaching dictation they have attempted to control employers in the selection of laborers and the wages to be paid them, and have discouraged, and, as far as they could, prevented, those who do not belong to their societies from procuring work; that by force, in one instance, they took complainant's laborers from its mine to their hall, where, upon such laborers refusing to comply with their demands to join the, and abide by their laws, they actually ordered their banishment from the state, and in a manner deserving the most severe condemnation enforced their lawless decree, and against men who, by reason of their birth, and not through the grace of the government, were entitled to all the rights of American citizenship; that in such numbers, and under such circumstances, as were menacing, they have requested nonunion men to cease work, and to such have applied in an offensive and threatening manner most opprobrious epithets, and in other ways have annoyed and vexed laborers who refuse to join their associations. I am not unmindful that they meet these charges by alleging in effect that when such things were done it was without their authority, and that the meeting referred to was held by citizens; but such defense is too transparent to conceal the truth. Such meeting was held in their hall, was composed largely of miners, and was presided over by defendant John Tobin, who says 'he was, and now is, the president of the Miners' Union of Burke;' and he also says that 'the meeting voted that they (the men banished) should be marched up the canyon, upon the ground that if they proceeded down the canyon violence might be apprehended from the outsiders. ' Such explanations cannot be received in exculpation of the wrong done by defendants, but, on the contrary, they cast a shadow over all their statements. Moreover, the governor of this state, after a personal investigation of the facts, aided by one of his official staff, did by his proclamation of June 4, 1892, declare that it had come to his knowledge 'that there now exists in the county of Shoshone, state of Idaho, combinations of men confederating and conspiring for unlawful purposes, insomuch that the property of citizens of said county is jeopardized, and the people thereof terrorized, and the laws are set at naught; and * * * the civil authorities seem inadequate or are disinclined to suppress violence and redress wrongs; and * * * such combinations are preventing by force the owners of mines from working and developing the same, and from employing persons of their choice, and are interfering with railroad travel and traffic. ' As such proclamation is a public document, and is also made a part of the record in this case, the court is justified in considering it, and from the known integrity, the dispassionate judgment, and the impartial character of his excellency, its statements are entitled to the highest respect.

After a most careful examination, the conclusion that the foregoing is a correct statement of the facts cannot be avoided. A wrong exists; rights have been infringed; unoffending citizens have been maltreated; the law has been overridden. May the courts be successfully invoked for restraining relief? That a national court has original jurisdiction in actions of this class cannot be questioned, as the parties are of diverse citizenship, and damages of over $2,000 are involved; but the important question is whether a court of chancery can exercise its power to restrain the further commission of the acts herein complained of. The unrestrained execution of the designs, which it would seem from the record in this case the defendants entertain, would result unfortunately. Carried to their logical conclusion, the owner of...