Morning journal and courier., 1886-05-01
DECISION RESERVED.

trial of Benjamin F. Glidden, "walking dele gate," came up. Glidden was arrested upon | a warrant charged with threatening and in- | timidating the fancy goods and gents fur
 nishing goods firm of Mendel & Freedman in | order to prevent them from advertising in | the JOURNAL AND COURIER. The court room
 was crowded and many lawyers and members | of the Yale Law school were present, evil | dently taking a lively interest in the case. | Some highly animating passages at arms l were anticipated but the defense entering 8 demurrer, no witnesses were examined and \ the contest was in consequence wholly upon | the law points involved. There have been
 number of cases tried in the New England 1 States involving more or less the I issue in this case, but this is be- lieved to be the first case where
 "boycotting" as a criminal offense has been
 brought before the courts for judgment. | Attorney John W. filling and ex-Judge l Blydenburgh, counsel for the JOURNAL AND l COURIER, appeared for the prosecution ill 1 conjunction with MT. Cable, the city attor- ! ney, and Professor Johnson T. Platt of the | Yale Law school and young attorney, MT. Moran, his assistant, appeared for Glidden. Quite number of the members of the Typo ! graphical union were in the audience. | Judge Deming, Morris F. Tyler, president of ! the Southern New England Telephone f company, Ex-Editor Deming of the News, l Hon. Charles L. Chaplin and various others 1 dropped in to see the legal battle. The city ! attorney read the information against Glid- 1 den. The accused sat aJ the elbow of his l counsel MT. Platt. The enquiry, "Guilty or l not guilty" was made to Glidden, when Pro- 1 lessor Platt asked for moments delay and Attorney Moran, his associate, offered de- 1 murrer, which set forth in the usual techni- l cal legal fashion, that the complaint and in l formation were not sufficient in law, and l that the prisoner at the bar ought, therefore, 1 to be discharged.
 Judge Pickett enquired of MT. P1att if he l wished to argue the demurrer. MT. Platt l replied afhrmatively.
 l Attorney Moran then opened the argument, his work being chiefly the reading of law cases cited in support of the demurrer. He 1 stated briefly the claim of the defense to be l that the threatening the law referred to 1 the threatening to do an illegal act and that 1 the law did not apply to the case on hand. l He quoted the definition of threaten from l Webster's and Bouvier's. The young attor- l ney also commented briefly upon the cases l cited to support the claim made. If the threat was to do act in itself legal there was no case against the accused.
 Attorney John w. filling made the argument against the demurrer, and tackled one by one the cases cited. In opening he
 made a thrust at Professor Platt, saying he had cited a case covering from 300 to 400 pages and had not specified which part of the vast number of pages he desired to call particular attention to. MT. filling then considered the statute upon which the com plsint is based, holding that it was clear, l explicit and ample for the case of the prose | cution. It provided distinctly for the cases l of all persons who should use means of in- | timidation to prevent person from | doing that which he has a leg al | right to do. The demurrer is general, rot | special. The defense endeavor to make the l claim that this threatening which has been | done does not amount to anything. That | certainly looks like an attempt to belittle
 the Knights of Labor, 8 grand organization, | and the Typographical union, not so grand. I They imply certainly that the threats of ] these organizations are too insignificant to | amount to anything or to require notice of any ordinary man. But so great is the mys- tery of a secret organization, so great the eff l feet of threat from it that it is regarded with certain degree of awe as from an | unknown power This leaves us to the question whether the effect of the statute | as to intimidation is confined only to | the doing of an illegal act. My legal friends say that only legal act has been done. Let | US whether this intimidation is criminal l in character. This statutes carries in it's very terms it's meaning, that threatening other to compel him to do something, or ab | stain from doing something when he has perfect right of choice in the matter, is a | misdemeanor. The point is that no man shall actively say to another you shall not do
 what you have a legal right to do; you shall | not intimidate another to pre- vent him from doing what
 he has legal right to de-. If you attempt to so intimidats another You
 shall stop it. Mr. Glidden and his associ- ates think the JOURNAL AND COURIER should discharge their workmen and think they can dictate what men the COURIER shall employ. The CoURIER's workmen are out of the un- ion. but they think, or pretend to think that
 they have got right to attempt to terrify the community and persuade men not to
 trade with the JOURNAL AND COURIER. It is
 that very mischief that the statute is de- signed to operate upon. My friend cannot say
 this is unconstitutional, because it is design
 ed to make it possible to live ill peace and order with one and another and is not
 this the exact meaning of the statute? If
 these printers and these Knights of Labor, if
 they are in it with the printers, if they do not like the COURIER, they have the right to
 refrain individually from patronizing it, but
 what moral right have they to band together
 and say to tradesmen or others, you shall
 not have business dealings with or trade with
 the COURIER under penalty of our active dis
 pleasure? No moral right! The statute says
 you shall not do it, if thereby you endeavor
 to restraincustomers of theCoURIER or intend-
 
 COURIER. You may have an abstract right to
 trade or not to trade at Mendel &l Freedmans,
 but at that point you must stop. Mr. filling
 now enforced the principle that both the speech and the letter of the law ust be con-
 sidered. Quoted from the statutes case in
 point.) Now if it is a fact that Glidden and his associates have any real grievance any real cause to show that they consider the COURIER unworthy the confidence or patronage of the community, they should at once produce it that it may be as promptly refuted. They do not do it. And the statute expressly for bids any unwarranted meddling in the affairs or business of another in the way boycotting is supposed to be carried on. Of course we did | not expect demurrer. We hoped the other l side would come squarely up to | the issue and try the case on it's merits. The | threatening is applied to in the first count. l These men say we will boycott you. Now | your honor as judge of this court is bound to l take official cogniZance of 1t. Boycott is one l of the most detestable words. But it is here l and, ,to MT: PlatD yes we did not ignore it in | the complaint. We know what boycott | means. It means and implies an association | of persons CT combination of persons. One | man alone cannot boycott the community. It means an organization whose purpose is to | boycott and such an organization is an ille- l gal combination and conspiracy, for who l ever heard or saw a legal boycotting organi- | zation. It means in any organization dicta- |
 
 rights Boycotting is almost always by an unknown or undefned association not legally | organized.
 Mir. filling enforced this thought and pro- ceeding said there is no persuasion used with the document (holding up boycott dodger). It is bullet fired. There is no pretense in this case that it is anything else than the power of secret order. Old Tacitus was right when he said "everything unknown terrifes." On this principle wooden or Quaker guns behind breastworks terrified even old soldiers. Generally those who defy l ths fa o PI~s6 G are hov. %
 fact that ordinary men of business hate to i encounter an unknown enemy. Upon that l the boycott lives. The boycott goes further l and says if you do not comply with our de- l mand we will attack you l wherever we find you. Hackmen l shall not carry you. If a man comes to trade with you he will be boycotted. And so on.
 You shall, ,says King Boycott become an iso- Ista5 and osfracized narson in the coInnuni- l