Seattle Brewing & Malting Co. v. Hansen

• Citation: 144 F. 1011
• Parties: SEATTLE BREWING & MALTING CO. v. HANSEN et al.
• Decision Date: 02 December 1905
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

144 F. 1011

SEATTLE BREWING & MALTING CO. v. HANSEN et al.

United States Circuit Court, N.D. California.

December 2, 1905

Milton S. Eisner, Bush Finnell, and W. H. Orrick, for complainant.

Emil Liess and Cameron H. King, for defendants.

BEATTY District Judge (orally).

I have examined the affidavits, as well as the authorities submitted by counsel in this case, and am prepared to announce my conclusion. I believe it is the general practice in this court to reduce such conclusions to writing and file the same for the benefit of those interested. This, however is a practice in which I indulge but little, and in this case I have nothing prepared not even notes. What I have to say will be orally stated and in such order as occurs to me as I proceed.

In this case, as in most cases of the kind, I find that the defendants, by affidavits and otherwise, deny most of the charges that are made against them. Among those so denied is the allegation that the drivers or employes of Rapp & Sons quit their employment through fear and threatened violence instigated by the defendants. By their denials I think they have met this charge. They show that these employes quit without compulsion and of their own volition. That they all quit at once is at least suggestive that some unusual influence was brought to bear upon them, but it may have been along by agreement among themselves and without any influence exercised by any commanding authority.

Of other specific acts charged against them, they deny the matters involved in the newspaper publications referred to. One was by complainant, stating its grievances, and the other the reply of the defendants thereto. If the complainant has the right, as it undoubtedly has, to set forth its views and the reasons of the dispute between the parties, there is no reason why the defendant should not have a like privilege of replying thereto. Certainly, in replying, their statements should not be such as reflect upon and tend to injure the complainant's business, unless the truth shall so operate. I think there is nothing in these publications meriting further notice, and they are passed.

Aside from those matters and the special acts which have been denied by the defendants, I think the whole record and some of the admissions made by defendants show that the contest between these parties is over a question of wages and the character of employment. It is one of the objects of the union laborers to have none but their own people engage in these different employments, which is one of the contests here. They desire that the complainant shall employ only union men, while the complainant desires to enforce what is termed the 'open shop.' That contest is clearly outlined by the record, and not only does it appear that such is the contention of the defendants, but that this originated in a distant part of the continent, at Cincinnati, where the first orders or promulgations were made against the complainant. It is unnecessary to review the testimony upon this subject, and, without it, such is stated as the ground of contest between these parties. Unquestionably the complainant has the right to say who its laborers shall be and how it shall employ them. It has the right to manage its own business. It cannot compel the defendants to work for it according to its terms; but it has a right to say how its business shall be operated. On the contrary, the defendants have a right to say whether they will accept those terms or not. If they can procure terms of their own that are better for them and can do it in a peaceful way, they have that right. There is no question about that.

There is a statement by one of the affiants in his affidavit on this point-- I imagine suggested by counsel-- that it is the desire of the defendants to better their condition, and that is what they are aiming to do. He devotes a page or two to that and moralizing on the downtrodden condition of the laboring people and the oppression of the employers, all of which I think is out of place. I do not think that the laborers are downtrodden, nor do I think that the employers aim to be oppressive, but it is a contest between them; each one doing what he can for his own benefit. It must be conceded by everybody that it is commendable in laboring people to endeavor to better their condition, both morally physically, and financially, and obtain the best prices they can for their labor and upon the most convenient terms for themselves. That is conceded by everybody. But that they must attain their objects by legal and proper means. They must not undertake to accomplish what they desire to the injury or at the expense of other people, and there is where the mistake is too often made. It is conceded by all that they have the right to better their condition, but they must not do it in a way to be oppressive of others. I think that is what they have attempted to do in this case. Perhaps they have not so intended, but the question is as to the result of their acts. Beyond any question, what they are trying to do would be oppressive of the business of these complainants.

Aside from these special charges of acts that they have done, there are things I think...