Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-06-26
aI.legallCombInations.a :

The Washington dispatches Of this
morning say that in the Supreme Court of
| the District of Columbia little case, IN
! volyinga great principle, we decided yes
terday. Judge Wylie declared, in his
opinion, that the combination of physicians
to regulate and prescribe the amount of
their fees was an illegal combination, and
he accordingly reduced a ply sician's bill
against the defendant in the case before
him to an amount equal to his previous
charges-about -one-half of the attempted
| increase.
| 1tis possible that this is good law. If it
is it applies to all trades unions. and SINH
| lar combinations. An analogous case arose
| in the courts of New York few years ago,
| and was decided on similar principles. = It
is a coincidence that it also occurred in the
medical profession. A county medical
passed resolutions that it should be consii-
cred uishon orable for any member of the
society TO take and hold the offices of physi-l
elan TO the Jail, almshonse, penitentiary,
&C., at less than certain rates, which we're
specified in a fee-billl accompanying the
resolutions Some time atterward mem
| ber OF the society underbid these rates, and
! thereby secured an Office. He was prompt
| ly, PEELED from the society at their next
meeting, an expulsion which technically
deprived him of the legal rights conferred
By. membership. In fact he was no longer
d. H.
{ He broueh suit In the Supreme Court
for restoration to membership in the socie-
ty. The, latter employed able counsel and
resisted his application on the ground that
they had a right to choose their company
and decide on the qualifications of their
| own members. But the court granted a
mandamus compelling the society to re-
cefve him back, on ground almost Identical
with that on which the decision of Judge
EWyfie, mentioned above, is bas ed. It was de-
hclared that the combination of the society
fto fix fees and coerceH its members was an
act of public injustice-in word it was an
Iillegal9 combination, interfering with per-
sonal liberty, and destructive to that health
full competition which is the life of busi-
ness. Ply ysicians had no rightto interfere,
as a body, with any private contracts that
individuals might choose to make. The
ljnrist, who rendered the decision (Judge
MarYin) gave the subject very careful
study in the light of common law, and was,
moreover, a. man of great learning and
purity of character. He is now, we believe,
one of the judges of the Court of Appeals
in New, York, ,-,.,, --, oys .y,.s4
II has thus been affirmed, in one case,
that such combinations have no binding
Ieffect upon the members consenting to
| them, and that any attempt to disgrace or
punish a person for violating such a bar
gain is Illegal; and. in second case, that
| fee-bills or tariffs so fixed have no value in
the law, but may be reduced at the option
of the court to what it NAV consider a rea-
sonable Charge In the New York case,
however, the opinion went further, and
declared all such combinations to be con-
Etrary to the public good-in, other words,
nuisapces to be abated under the law. If
| this is true as applied to doctors, it is equal
| ly true as applied to all mechanical trades; !;
and it is aquestion a for the lawyers to set
tie whether the compulsory measures EN-
Nl<x
| hiring of certain kinds of hands, or to in
terfere with private contracts, are not also
| illega and good causes for action in the
law = It is true that the unions very rarely
resort to force, but they hold and WELD a
power of moral Intimidation which is
equally y coercive. .,t1 = y 2 -. A1i=A
/ iSuppose builder to have taken a con-
i tract, and to have employed his labor on
terms which would yield him profit. Sup
pose that these laborers are then coerced
4 by others, not themselves parties to the
mutual contract. and so intimidated by
1 threats of social and business Ostracism as
to desert their work, thus subjecting them
selves and their employers to serious loss.
In sucha a case the same rules of law involv-
ed in the Two decisions we have instaneed,
would give to the losing parties a legal
remedy against those who occasioned the
| loss. And probably the reason that no such
suits are brought is because the influences
employe to interfere in such contracts are
so intangible and difficult of proof that
the evidence must in nearly all cases be de-
ficient.
The subject is one of great interest, and
includes within itself some of the most in
tricate of social problems. There is so
much of right on each side that the public
press has usually shrunk from its discus
sion, SO as to allow the experiment to work
itself out. Perhaps this is really the wiser
course. 1t must come at last to the arbi-
trament of necessity. The laws of demand
and supply will control the question. If
wages are so high that men cannot afford
toabuild, they will bury their money in the
various securities which are offered, instead
OF investing it in real estate, and thus de-
mand for labor will diminish until it comes
into the market at price which will COM
mand sale.-N Ne.oarL MID AduerttSer.