Gulf Bag Co. v. Suttner

• Decision Date: 27 July 1903
• Docket Number: 13,412.
• Citation: 124 F. 467
• Parties: GULF BAG CO. v. SUTTNER et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

124 F. 467

GULF BAG CO. v. SUTTNER et al.

No. 13,412.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. California.

July 27, 1903

H. B Montague and Houghton & Houghton, for complainant.

H. W Hutton and Bert Schlesinger, for defendants.

BEATTY District Judge.

The complainant alleges the existence of the San Francisco Labor Council of Federated Trades, of which defendants Benham and Zant are respectively president and secretary; that its objects are to compel the employers of labor to employ only union laborers; that the Cotton Bag Workers' Union, No 10,648, is a union association of which defendants Hanback and Tiedemann are respectively president and secretary, and some of whose members worked for complainant, and quit complainant's service on June 8, 1903; that all of defendants have conspired and combined to injure complainant's business, unless it shall employ only the members of such union; that on and after the 8th day of June 1903, defendants assembled in large numbers about complainant's premises, and by unlawful threats, intimidations, and other unlawful means so intimidated complainant's employes as to prevent them from working. There are numerous affidavits attached to the complaint showing various unlawful acts by defendants, consisting of the application to complainant's employes of vile epithets and language, of threats against them, and in a few instances of actual personal assaults. Upon such showing a restraining order was issued, and the question now is whether it shall be continued until the case can be heard upon its merits.

By their affidavits the defendants specifically deny every unlawful act, the use of every threat, of every vile epithet or language charged to have been done or used by them, and they allege, as is the rule in such cases, 'that the principal object of their union is, by mutual arrangements with the employers of its members, to secure satisfactory rates of wages, and to improve the efficiency of its members, and that it does not approve or tolerate violence for any purpose. ' There is no doubt that all the written stated objects in their records of organization are worthy and commendable, but the question is not as to the objects of their organization, stated or otherwise; it is what they do. While, as stated, defendants deny the commission of any unlawful acts, there are many admissions of their presence about complainant's premises about the times charged; but they say they were there only for the purpose of peaceably persuading others not to work for, and to quit the service of, complainant-- there is one admission of the use of epithets, but not by any of the defendants. Ida Banchero says:

'It is true that some people in the vicinity called some of the employes of the Gulf Bag Company, they having about eight at work during the week above mentioned, 'scabs,' but it is untrue that any of the defendants herein ever called any one 'scab.' We have called the Gulf Bag Company 'scab,' which is a fact, but we or either of us have not told any of the present employes of the Gulf Bag Company that they would be done up, or that we would have it in for them. All that was done in our behalf was to use peaceable persuasion, and tell said people and request others not to take our places,' etc.

There is no doubt that some of the defendants were there, and it is charged that at times the...