The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1882-09-17
The State In Relation to Labor.

of the English people.
The State In Relation to Labor.
Under the above title. Mcssrs. Macmillan
have published the last treatise written by the
wcll-known economist Prof. W. STANLEY JEvoHs.
whose recent death by drowning has called forth
so many expressions OF regret in this country
well las In Great Britain. He sought in this little
volume to investigate why English legislation
on tho whole upholds the let-alone principle.
and yet in large classes of cases has invoked
the Interference OF local or central authority.
The outcome of his inquiry is that no hard
andiast rules can be laid down but that every
case must be treated in detail upon its
merits. "A balance being struck between conflict
ing probabilities of good and evil. A notewor-
thy feature OF the book is the sober and equta-
bic spirit in which the author discusses the
functions and proceedings of labor organizu-
tons. He pronounces the economic errors OF
trades unions in no wise worse than those
which pervadcd the commercial If not tho gov
erning classes in Great Britain a generation or
two ago. and he thinks the time has come
when all bitter epithets and all class rancor
should be forever laid aside. 1t is his COM
ments touching the English law of industrial
conspiracy, and the extent to which it has been
modified in recent years under the pressure of
invite attention.
There is no partof tho law relating to labor
which has been debated with more bitterness
in Great Britain than that touchn. tho doc
trine of conspiracy. Prof Jevons reminds us
that until very lately the common law of Eng
land gave power to the Judges. or. at any rate.
they assumed the power to treat any combi
nation of aborers aiming at the increase OF
wages as a conspiracy against tho public veal
which could be punished as a misdemeanor by
fine and Imprisonment. This arbitrary
power has now bean defined and re-
stricted 10y the Con-p piracy and Protcc-
ton OF Property act passed in 1875
which in one section onacts that an agreement
or combination by two or more persons to do
or procure to be- done any act in contemplation
or turhcrancc of u trade dispute between en-
ployers and workmcn shall not be ndictablu rs
u conspiracy If such act 90 nmitted by ono per-
son would not be punishable MS II crime. As
other parts, how ,ver. OF the same section con-
tinucd or imposed special penalties in the case
Of proceedings declared to constitute conspir-
acy, many trades unonists are sill dSsatis-
fed ut tho state of the law They regard these
penalties as relics OF the obsolete. mistaken
class legislation. and urge that the offence of
conspiracy should be entirely abolished as re-
CARDS labor questions.
With view To determine whether tho trades
unions are justified in this demand Prof Jew
ons examines at some length the grounds
OF the law OF conspiracy. and his conclu-
sion is that the act of 1875 was drawn upon
the proper lines. He thinks 1t cndeavornd to
Discriminate between such acts Of conspiracy
as are and such rs are not highly noxiOus to
society. Thus II strike. or any breach Of con-
tract on the part ofcmployees involving failure
Of the water and gas supplies of towns. is rem
dcrcd punishable with Imprisonment for three
months. and Il like penalty Ia imposed
where any person wilfully and maliciously
breaks a contract of service or of hiring,
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe
that the probable consequences II his 50 doing,
either alone or in combination with others. will
be to endanger human life Or cause serious
bodily injury, or expose valuable property.
whether real or personal. to destruction or
serious injury" 1t is obvious that u railroad
strike might be covered by the latter part OF
this description. Another section aims to avert
the species of intimidation by which workmcn
are prevented from taking the places Of those
who are on strike. for it enacts special penal
ties for any person convicted of intimidat-
ing, annoying. or Watching another person.
with view to compel him to do or abstain
from doing any act which such person has n
right to do or abstain from doing"
1t has been frequently urged that these special
penalties invilious, for If the acts OF intim-
idation or annoyance are Illegal. why il il asked
should they not be- left 10 bs dealt with by tho
general law Prof. JcyOns thinks that the anal
ogy here relied upon Is unsound. and points
out that although 10 shake your fist ut n man
is the same physical act whether done in mo-
mantary anger or rs part Of an extensive or
concerted system OF action yet it may have
vastly greater social Significance and harmful
ness in tho lattcr than in the former casc. He
| insists that tho whole Of tho criminal law
Is made up of special ponaltieq gradu-
atcd, not according to their intrinsic but
according 10 their social noxiousness.
Thus forgery is only one mode of
fraud. but. being peculiarly dangerous to soc-
ETY., is punished with special severity. so, to
| break into u house. is tn. same act physically
! whether done by day or by night but bcing
| more alarming and injurious in the latter ease.
II sevcrcr penalty is prescribed. Having regard
therefore. To the extraordinary powers which
combinations Of men, acting together may ac-
! uuire Prof. Jevons deems it reasonable that
any Illegal acts which they commit should DO
! repressed not by IL general law, but under u
| special statute adapted to tho peculiar circum-
| stances. He mentions. in connection
with this topic. that Thomas Hughes
| and Frederick Harrison, who hnvo been
conspicuous among the British advocates
of the trades unions. acknowledge that an ex-
| traordinary danger to tho public safety
| would justify even such an anomalous system.
| Prof. Jcvons points out that, even under tho act
| of 1878, which is the object of much complaint.
n public danger might arise for which the
| courts would be powcrless to provide II remedy.
| The statute only punishos conduct leading to
injury of property, loss of life. &c.. whom It
involves breach of contract. Thus, II a