Marx & Haas Jeans Clothing Co. v. Watson

• Decision Date: 19 March 1902
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: MARX & HAAS JEANS CLOTHING CO. v. WATSON et al.

67 S.W. 391

168 Mo. 133

MARX & HAAS JEANS CLOTHING CO. v. WATSON et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March 19, 1902.

SUPREME COURT — APPELLATE JURISDICTION — CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS — EXERCISE FOR BOYCOTTING PURPOSES — INJUNCTION.

1. An allegation in a verified petition for an injunction that plaintiffs, if defendants be not restrained, will be damaged in excess of $10,000, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction of an appeal in such cause on the supreme court; the test being the value in money of the relief afforded either party, should it be granted or denied.

2. Under section 14 of the bill of rights, guarantying to every person freedom "to say, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty," and section 30, providing "that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law," which likewise impliedly guaranties freedom of speech, the right to speak, write, and publish, is absolutely privileged against interference therewith by injunction, and its exercise for the purpose of boycotting the business of individuals cannot be restrained, though the privilege is abused, and plaintiffs, owing to the insolvency of defendants, are without an adequate remedy at law.

Robinson, J., dissenting.

In banc. Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; Leroy B. Valliant, Judge.

Injunction by the Marx & Haas Jeans Clothing Company against Anthony Watson and others. A temporary injunction was dissolved, and the petition dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Walter D. Coles and Silas B. Jones, for appellant. Lee Meriwether, W. B. Thompson, and F. A. Thornton, for respondents.

SHERWOOD, J.

The plaintiff company sought to enjoin defendants from declaring or enforcing a boycott against it, to the injury of its business, by inducing its customers, and others who might become such, from dealing with it for its productions. To carry through the boycott, as it is termed, into effect, the following circular was issued and freely circulated by defendants:

"Headquarters of Joint Executive Board of L. A. 993, Knights of Labor. Local Union 129, United Garment Workers of America. Affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. St. Louis, Mo., April, 1898. A few reasons why a boycott has been placed against the firm of Marx & Haas, manufacturers of jeans clothing and the Jack Rabbit pants, St. Louis, Mo.: This trouble between the clothing cutters of St. Louis and the firm of Marx & Haas originated as far back as September, 1895, when the clothing cutters were all in one labor organization, namely, the Knights of Labor, which trouble at that time culminated in a boycott being placed against the firm by the Knights of Labor. The firm, in order to counteract the boycott, which was doing their business a great deal of injury, evolved a scheme which they knew would have the desired effect, if carried out successfully. This was nothing less than the organization of a rival union, and so, by threats of discharge for noncompliance with their demands, promises of increase in wages, steady work all the year around, and the payment of all expenses, they finally induced the men employed in their shops to organize a local union of the United Garment Workers of America. Now, let us see how well they kept their promises. In the spring of 1896, instead of the steady work which they had promised, they laid the men off from three to six months; and in December of the same year, after keeping the men idle for this length of time, and knowing they were practically forced to accept whatever terms they might dictate, they reduced their wages from ten to fifteen per cent., and increased the amount of work required. In May, 1897, they again reduced the men's wages from twenty-five to thirty-five per cent. This last reduction brought the men to a realization of their helpless condition, and so they made overtures to the Knights of Labor for a union of forces, which was finally effected; and, while the two organizations maintain their separate unions, they work in harmony on all trade matters, and have the hearty approval of the general officers for their action. Immediately after the reunion a schedule of work and wages was submitted to the firm, and after considerable trouble it was accepted by the firm, but was in force but a short time when the firm again violated its signed and sealed contract. The organization decided to let the matter rest until the expiration of their contract, which took place on January 1, 1898. Immediately after the above date we presented another schedule of work and wages, which the firm could not misconstrue, as they had done with former schedule. After waiting for several weeks for a decision from the firm, which was withheld on one pretense or another, the organization finally decided to inform the firm that the schedule submitted by the organization would go into effect on and after Tuesday, March 23, 1898. For answer to this the firm presented a schedule to the committee who waited on them which was so outrageously high that no man could do the work, were he ever so willing. The committee were also informed by Mr. H. Marx, the president of the firm, that `any G___d d___n man who would not work according to his schedule would be kicked out of his shop, and he would let the whole business go to h___l before he would work by any G___d d___n schedule but his own!' The committee made a verbatim report of their visit to the firm to the joint organization, who immediately rejected the firm's schedule, and issued instructions to the men employed by the firm to work according to their own schedule from the date set by the organization. For carrying out the laws of the organization, four of the men were discharged, the first two being officers of the organization; the firm thinking that if they got rid of the `agitators,' as they called them, the rest of the men would continue to submit to the unhuman treatment they had been receiving for the past three years. You will see from the above statement of facts what an unscrupulous firm this is. We are positive we have proven to you the justice of our position, and we hope it will not be necessary to inform the labor and reform organizations with which we are affiliated who are in your locality, as we are satisfied we have convinced you that the stand we have taken in this case is a just one, and will command the support of all fair-minded men. We therefore request you to write to Messrs. Marx & Haas, and inform them that you would request them to settle the dispute with their employees, or otherwise you cannot afford to handle their goods as long as they are antagonizing organized labor, who are your friends and customers. By doing this you will aid us in getting simple justice from this more than unfair firm. Should this firm make a settlement with us, you will be informed of the fact under the seals of the joint organizations. Until such time, we trust there will be no report made to our office that Marx & Haas have shipped you any more goods. Kindly inform us what action you take in this matter, and any further information you may desire will be cheerfully furnished by writing to headquarters of joint executive board, No. 911 Pine street, St. Louis, Missouri.

                  "[Seal.]                          [Seal.]"
                

Supplemental to this circular, committees were appointed to wait upon various merchants in St. Louis and vicinity, and inform them of the trouble existing between the Marx & Haas Company and its employés, and request their assistance in the cause of the employés by refusing to deal further with Marx & Haas during the pendency of the trouble. In some instances, as appeared in the evidence at the trial, threats were made by members of these committees that the patronage of the boycotters and their friends would be withheld from certain merchants unless they discontinued their business dealings with the plaintiff corporation; but in no instance were there threats made of any resort to violence or unlawful intimidation. The threats were always and solely threats of a mere withholding of trade relations by the boycotters and those acting with them no intimidation through fear of personal violence, or of the destruction of property; nothing but the mere abstaining from business relations with them, and the persuasion of others to do likewise. The plaintiff's petition concludes with the prayer "that the defendants, their associates, confederates, agents, and representatives, be enjoined and restrained by a temporary order of injunction, to be made final upon the hearing of this cause, from boycotting, or making effectual, promulgating, or in any wise proclaiming any boycott upon or against, the plaintiff or its goods, and from sending, conveying, or delivering in any way, to any person, firm, corporation, or association, any boycott notice, verbal or otherwise, referring to the plaintiff or its goods, and from in any way menacing, hindering, or obstructing the plaintiff from the fullest enjoyment of all the patronage, business, and custom which it may possess, enjoy, or acquire independent of the action of the said defendants, or any of them."

The answer of Brining was a general denial. The answer of the other defendants is a general denial, and contains other defenses. The point of difference, it seems, from the answer, which gave origin to this litigation, consisted in the difference in the schedules either party insisted on, respecting the number of double layers of cloth that would have to be cut by one operation of the machine, and also sectionized with the knife; plaintiff insisting on a larger number being thus cut with the machine, and sectionized with the knife; defendants, on a less number. After setting out the varying number of layers of different kinds of cloth required to be cut by the old schedule and the new, and showing the excess of thicknesses under...