Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-07-07
Protective ASSOCIATIONS-IM-
PORTANT DECISION.

HOEh <AAN
The trades unions and other sssocia-
tons gotten up ostensibly for the mutual
protection of those who may become
members-but really to compel employ
els 10 conduct their business to the great
est possible profit of the members Of the
unions, regardless of the interest of the
employers-sre not only exacting but
tyrannical in their demands as between
employer and employee. 1t appears. that
one of these associations in Massachusetts
has been pushing matters little too far,
and the injured party has appealed
to the courts for redress. The case
is briefly as follows: The defend
ants, Alexander Rutherford and others,
were members of Stone-cutters' Asso-
citation of Boston. This Association lev
led 'Finen of five hundred dollars on
the plaintiff, John Oarew, for sanding
some stone TO New York to be cut con-
trary to the rules of the Association, of
which he was not a member. After first
refusing, he paid it, under tie conviction
that he could not obtain men to complete
his contracts if he did not. Subsequently
he brought suit to recover the five hun
bred dollars and damages. He failed in
the lower Courts, but obtained judgment
in his favor in the Supreme Court. The
following is the rescript:
"a conspiracy against mechanic who
is under the necessity of employing
wuIkmen in order TO carry on his bust
ness TO obtain sum of money from him
which he is under no legal liability 10
pay, by inducing his workmen TO leave
him and by lettering others from enter
Ing into his employment by threats or
otherwise, so that he is induced to pay
the money demanded, under e reasonable
apprehension that he cannot carry on his
business without yielding to the illegal
demand, is an illegal conspiracy, and the
acts done under it are illegal, and the
money thus obtained may be recovered
back, and if the parties succeed in in
turing his business they are liable to pay
al the damage they have done him."
The wrong defined by this decision
may be inflicted by % inducing workmen
10 leave an employer; by (2) deterring
others from entering his employment by
threats; and by 90 effecting either of
these ends "otherwise" than by threats,
provided money is obtained or damage
inflicted by either Of these means. This
is very broad ground. 1t substantially
confines the trades unions to one measure
of compulsion toward employers-the
refusal to work for them. Should
they go beyond this, they are
by this decision, rendered liable
to payment of damages We do
not think the working men can
quarrel with the justice of the decision.
L leaves them the absolute control of
their own action, and forbids them only
TO endeayor TO control the actions of
Others, fixing on them tie responsibility
for the consequence Of such attempts.
4
Of course the rule applies TO employers
as well. 1t prohibits them from exer-
cising any control over the action Of
workmen, other than is consequent on
a refusal TO employ them. 1t leaves
to both parties the free use of
what belongs TO them, and only for
bids interference with what belongs
to others. According to this decision, it
would be conspiracy for trades union
or association by any other name, TO re.
| ouire its members to quit the employment
of man because he should discharge a
member of the association, or should in
cur the displeasure of such association by
refusing 10 work under the rules it pre-
scribed for his government 1t is well
that this question of the rights of employ
ers snd employees has been settled by
| judicial decision, as it is likely this decis-
ion will have tendency to repress strikes,
which are destructive to the interests of
! both cmDlOyer and employe