them, against appellee, that took the form of injuries to cables and other property, strikes or threats to strike, and other acts that induced the owners of the premises, where appellee was doing its work or desired to do it, to prevent appellee from proceeding with its work. The District Court found that the allegations of the bill were sustained, and that appellee had a right to equitable relief, not only because there was shown an intent to restrain interstate commerce, but also because there was shown diverse citizenship and an unlawful boycott.

There is not much controversy about the facts. The contention on behalf of appellants is that the injunction imposes upon appellants "involuntary servitude," in violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, by compelling them, as union men, against their wishes and interests, to work with nonunion men in the same trade. No appellant was, had been, or prospectively was to be, an employee of appellee. The things that were done were not done because of any violation by the employer of any term of the contract of employment. They were not done to induce the payment of higher wages, better working conditions, or for any other lawful purpose. But they were done to compel their own perfectly satisfactory employers, or the owners of the premises where appellee was doing or desired to do its

installation work, to injure and annoy appellee, and to such ployers to violate contracts with appellee, for the sole reason that appellee employed nonunion men. What the Supreme Court said in American Steel Foundries v. TriCity Central Trades Council, 257 U. S. 184, 212, 66 L. ed. 189, 201, 27 A.L.R. 360, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72, 79, concerning the Duplex Case, 254 U. S. 443, 65 L. ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196,

41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172, is applicable and controlling here:

"Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 65 L. ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172, also cited, can have no bearing here. In that case the International Association of Machinists, an unincorporated association, having a membership of more than 60,000, united in a combination to compel the complainant tc unionize its factory, enforce the closed shop, the eight-hour day, and the union scale of wages by boycctting the interstate trade of that company. They conducted in the city of New York a campaign of threatening the customers of the printing press company, the trucking companies that carried its presses, and those who were engaged in the work of setting up such presses, with injury to them in their business, if they continued to deal with the Duplex Company or its presses. It was a palpable effort on the part of the International Association of Machinists to institute a secondary boycott; that is, by coercion, to use the right of trade of persons having nothing to do with the controversy between the Duplex Company and the Machinist's Union, and having no interest in it, to injure the Duplex Company in its interstate trade."

Speaking of the wrongful exercise of a right, the Supreme Court said in Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co. 221 U. S. 418, 439, 55 L. ed. 797, 805, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492, 497: "Society itself is an organization, and does not object to organizations for social, religious, business, and all legal purposes. The law, therefore, recog nizes the right of workingmen to unite and to invite others to join their ranks, thereby making avail able the strength, influence, and power that come from such association. By virtue of this right, powerful labor unions have been organized. But the very fact that it is lawful to form these bodies, with multitudes of members, means that

The conclusion reached in the reported case (INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD, E. W. v. WESTERN U. TELEG. CO. ante, 1538), that an injunction against unlawfully striking or threatening to strike is not objectionable as unconstitutionally imposing involuntary servitude, is also supported by the case of Burgess Bros. Co. v. Stewart (1920) 112 Misc. 347, 184 N. Y. Supp. 199, in which it was held that involuntary servitude was not imposed by an in

junction restraining members of labor unions as employees of a common carrier from refusing to handle or assist in the transportation of merchandise tendered for shipment, since such an injunction does not forbid the individual employee to quit work, or to accept better employment if he can find it, or to change his position should he see fit.

See also, to the same effect, (1921) 114 Misc. 673, 187 N. Y. Supp. 873. E. S. O.