Cited page

Citations are available only to our active members. Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

X X

Cited page

Display options
Reset

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays & Selected Cases

By: Alpheus Thomas Mason; William M. Beaney | Book details

Contents
Look up
Saved work (0)

matching results for page

Page 479
Why can't I print more than one page at a time?
While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
interfered with the free conduct of the business; that plaintiffs did not claim that defendants had by violent means invaded their rights, and that if that kind of picketing were charged and established by proof plaintiffs would be entitled to relief to the extent of prohibiting violence in any form.The effect of this ruling is that, under the statute, loss may be inflicted upon the plaintiffs' property and business by "picketing" in any form if violence be not used, and that, because no violence was shown or claimed, the campaign carried on, as described in the complaint and exhibits, did not lawfully invade complainants' rights. . . .The complaint and its exhibits make this case:The defendants conspired to injure and destroy plaintiffs' business by inducing their theretofore willing patrons and would-be patrons not to patronize them and they influenced these to withdraw or withhold their patronage:
(1) By having the agents of the union walk forward and back constantly during all the business hours in front of plaintiffs' restaurant and within five feet thereof, displaying a banner announcing in large letters that the restaurant was unfair to cooks and waiters and their union.
(2) By having agents attend at or near the entrance of the restaurant during all business hours and continuously announce in a loud voice, audible for a great distance, that the restaurant was unfair to the labor union.
(3) By characterizing the employees of the plaintiffs as scab Mexican labor, and using opprobrious epithets concerning them in handbills continuously distributed in front of the restaurant to would-be customers.
(4) By applying in such handbills abusive epithets to Truax, the senior member of plaintiffs' firm, and making libelous charges against him, to the effect that he was tyrannical with his help, and chased them down the street with a butcher knife, that he broke his contract and repudiated his pledged word; that he had made attempts to force cooks and waiters to return to work by attacks on men and women; that a friend of Truax assaulted a woman and pleaded guilty; that. . . Truax's treatment of his employees was explained by his friend's assault; that he was a "bad actor."
(5) By seeking to disparage plaintiffs' restaurant, charging that the prices were higher and the food worse than in any other restaurant, and that assaults and slugging were a regular part of the bill of fare, with police indifferent.
(6) By attacking the character of those who did patronize, saying that their mental calibre and moral fibre fell far below the American average, and enquiring of the would-be patrons -- Can you patronize such a place and look the world in the face?
(7) By threats of similar injury to the would-be patrons -- by such expressions as "All ye who enter here leave all hope behind," [and] "Don't be a traitor to humanity"; by offering a reward for any of the ex-members of the union caught eating in the restaurant; by saying in the handbills: "We are also aware that handbills and banners in front of a business house on the main street give the town a bad name, but they are permanent institutions until William Truax agrees to the eight-hour day."
(8) By warning any persons wishing to purchase the business from the Truax firm that a donation would be necessary, amount to be fixed by the District Trades Assembly, before the picketing and boycotting would be given up. . . .

Plaintiffs' business is a property right ( Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 465) and free access for employees, owner and customers to his place of business is incident to such

-479-

Select text to:

Select text to:

  • Highlight
  • Cite a passage
  • Look up a word
Learn more Close
Loading One moment ...
of 669
Highlight
Select color
Change color
Delete highlight
Cite this passage
Cite this highlight
View citation

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?