40 



HARDWOOD RECORD 



veneer producing facilities considerably, and in addition provide, 

 by the installation of the most modern types of equipment through- 

 out, to produce even a higher grade lino of stock than formerly. 



Everything is in readiness to rush operations to completion. 

 With good weather conditions, the Cincinnati Veneer Company 

 will be producing veneer by the first of the year. 



NOTES OF THE TRADE 



Monday night, Oct. 2:i, tlie i^laiit ot Markley & Miller. 

 Mobile, Ala., was destroyed by fire, entailing a loss of $100,000. 

 There was practically no insurance. This company manufactured 

 veneers from domestic and imported hardwoods. It brought ma 

 hogany and other woods in its own steamer from Mexico. No 

 information as to intention of rebuliding has been imparted by 

 the company "s officials. 



« * * 



W. S. Walker, head of the Portsmouth Veneer and Panel Com- 



pany, Portsnioutli, Ohio, died Xov. 5 as a result of a surgical 

 operation. Mr. Walker was one of the highest esteemed members 

 of the veneer industry, and his passing will be mourned by a large 

 circle of personal friends as well as his confreres in the veneer 



business. 



« * * 



.\ large hardwood warehouse is to be opened by H. W, Raymond 

 of Indianapolis, Ind., at High Point, N. C, which will carry among 

 other wood coiiinioditios hardwood veneers of all kinds. 



* * * 



Two buildings, 71x124 feet and 96x128 feet, are being erected 

 by the Wolf Eiver Company, New London, Wis., manufacturer of 

 chairs, as an addition to its factory, for the manufacture of 

 veneers. The veneer will bo consumed by the company in making 

 a new line of chairs and opera seats. It is expected that the new 

 department will be in operation early in the year. 



• 'I^^J!i^iiA;>'>:.^c,^^>il^^ Mta^l3iii;ilWJi^iO^>!tii6mi^^ 



Action Against Carpenters^ Union 



There are several important cases now pending before the courts 

 of New York City comprehending actions instituted by leading lum- 

 ber houses against the carpenters' unions, seeking to prevent certain 

 alleged unlawful practices of the unions in boycotting non-union made 

 trun and millwork. The outcome of these cases is of widespread 

 interest throughout the lumber trade, and the last fortnight has seen 

 several developments in the progress of the cases. 



In the first place early this year the A. J. Newton Com- 

 pany, millwork concern at Brooklyn, secured a permanent injunction 

 against the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jointers, who sought to 

 prevent by strike and boycott union men from installing the open 

 shop products of the Newtown company on buUdings in course of 

 construction, and after the granting of a temporary injunction the 

 Supreme Court of New York state made the injunction permanent. 



Then a case was instituted by the Paine Lumber Company and 

 the E. McMillan Company, both of Oshkosh, Wis., and seven or eight 

 other large manufacturers of doors and millwork in the South and 

 West, whose products being of open-shop manufacture, the local 

 unions refused to handle under a compact which the complainants 

 alleged was made between the labor unions and certain other union 

 millwork manufacturers, whereby the union carpenters agreed to 

 install only the products of union mUls. These cases, on first argu- 

 ment, resulted in the court issuing a temporary injunction restraining 

 the unions from practicing any such alleged methods, and a final 

 hearing on the injunction occurred during the fortnight. The court 

 now has the case under advisement and a decision is expected shortly. 

 The arguments presented at the final hearing on this injunction were 

 of special interest, the attorneys for the labor organizations making 

 the following contentions: 



First, the motion papers show only a so-called union conspiracy against 

 all non-union mankind In mills, and not a specific conspiracy asainsf any 

 Individuals, and, .second, the agreement of organization or conspiracy Is 

 for the benefit of our own members, to furnish them with work by the 

 "outside" members, declining to install any mill products which arc not 

 made by Its own members. 



This case Is quite dltferent from the lines of boycott cases, grouped 

 under primary and secondary boycotts. It may be premised that strikes 

 against persons with whom labor ha.s a grievance and In the interests of 

 labor, when not Induced by malice, appear to be universally recognized as 

 lawful. That is to say, that If we had union men In plaintiffs' mills and 

 they struck because non-union men were employed there they were within 

 their right. But here the plaintiffs contend we come under the secondary 

 boycotts. It may be premised that strikes against a grievance against 

 third persons because they have bought the plaintiffs' gowls. But the facts 

 here are very different than In these secondary boycott eases. 



Let us first dispose of malice. There seems to be, and can be no 

 Inference of malice against these plaintiffs, because we lake the same 

 action against all non-union goods. The plaintiffs arc not singled out 

 from the hundreds of other non-union mills for discrimination by us, all 

 non-union mills are considered aa a whole, under the rules of union labor 

 that they will not work with non-union men nor on non union things. 



Declining to work on non-union materials — for there are no other union 

 men in carpentry but our own members — means no more than that we 

 decline to work on mill pioducts of other men than our own members. 

 The purpose is plain, we desire to keep our own members in the union 

 mills. 



The principal points in the brief filed by the manufacturers con- 

 tending that the injunction should be sustained are as follows: 



1. A combination of workmen to bring about the employment of mem- 

 bers of their organization excIuslTely in their industry throughout an 

 entire community is unlawful. 



2. The facts establish a combination to cause strikes against customers 

 of complainants for the purpose of preventing the sale of their products 

 as long as they remain open shops, and is, in effect, a secondary boycott 

 of the complainants, which is unlawful. 



3. Sympathetic strikes are unlawful. 



4. None of the acts can be justified as competition in the sale of 

 merchandise. 



5. The mere act of refusing to work upon or handle given materials is 

 illegal, when it is a part of a combination to restrain trade and Injure 

 business. 



0. The combination presented is contrary to the general business law 

 ot New York, and contrary to the federal statutes. 



7. There was urgent need for a preliminary injunction. 



8. Relief asked tor in this suit has not and will not affect arbitration 

 agreements. 



0. It is no defense to allege that the complainants are a trust. 



Notwithstanding the bringing of these two actions as enumerated, 

 it seems that Louis Bossert & Son, large lumber and millwork house 

 of Brnoklyii, wlio operate nn open shop, have of late also suffercil 

 similar action on the part of the labor unions directed against their 

 customers. As a result, Louis Bossert & Son appealed to the court 

 for relief and the Supremo Court granted a temporary injunction, 

 which will come up for final hearing on Nov. 21. The Bossert case 

 is practically along the same lines as that of the A. J. Newton 

 Company, and grows out of an effort on the part of the unions 

 to prevent the use of open-shop woodwork and trim through the 

 calling of strikes on buildings where such work is being used. It 

 seems likely, from the similarity of these cases, tliat the court will 

 grant a permanent injunction in the case. 



The injunction issued in the Newton case enjoined the "defend- 

 ants, their attorneys, agents, servants, associates, confederates and 

 all persons acting in aid of or in connection with them, or any of 

 them, from conspiring, combining, or acting in concert in any manner 

 to injure or interfere with plaintiffs' good will, trade, or business, 

 for the purpose of coercing them to employ union labor, either, first : 

 By sending to any customers or prosiiective customer of plaintiff :in\ 

 letter, circular or communication printed, written or oral, which in 

 terms or by inference suggests that labor troubles will follow the use 

 of materials purchased from plaintiff, or from any person, firm or 

 corporation declared 'unfair,' or whose material docs not bear the 



