The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-11-10
THE RoYcoTTINc CASE.
Opening Of the First Trial Ever Held
In the State,

PLYMOUTH, Nov. 9.-The trial of Conn
Gilman William b.. O'Keefe Of Salem and
Peter MeGeough OF Lynn, for boycottlng the
leather firm of Charles Harrington Il Sons
came up in the Superior Court this morning
Chief Justice Brigham presided The de-
PENDANTS pleaded not guilty. District Al
torney Bumpus, and Moulton ana Ives ~
Salem appeared for the government and
General Butler and Frank l.. Washburn for
the defendants. At the beginning Gen. But
Ter moved to quash the Indictment. on the
ground that it does not set forth agreement
to do criminal act by unlawful means. that
because the facts are not consistent with the
innocence of.the accused; that the indict-
ment Is not In accordance with the facts !;
that the alleged conspiracy was not to be
effected by force of arms; that the conspira-
cy was not with intent to compel the shoe
manufacturer to do anything against his
Will that the angered threats were not
against the manufacturer; and lastly, that
no crime Is sufficiently set fOrtl Gen. But
Ter argued at length ON the motion 10 ouash.
Judge Bridgham said substantially:
1t is is well established principle that
every man has the right to ckose his lgbor
and any interference is unlawful. Every
man man mas me right TO buy, sell aid manufac
lure, provided he does so lawfully. The
right of laborer to chose his own labor Is
no more lawful than the right OF the manu.
Iacturers. TO but and use whatever leather he
may chose, from whom he may chose, and
any man who. undertakes to prevent the
manufacturer from bnying or using goods
lnterseres with his rights. 1t is equally true
that laborers have the right to combine to
enhance the price of his labor such as might
reduce the profits of employers. Manufac-
turers may combine to use machinery and
the result viii be reduction inthe value of
labor These being the rights o, both par
tles, any man who undertakes tc prevent the
manufacturer from using material interferes
with the right of the manufacturer, so that
II combination of persons is made to de-
Ieat that right it is an unlawful combination.
think the means used to carry out the at
tempt unlawful and we have conspiracy in
legal sense. The question is what means
are lawful for the purpose of comprising that
end. II the means employed were hreats to in
lure.the persons ora business a combination
TO use these means would be conspiracy.
Judge Brigham was in doubt alput the fiffh
count as to whether the injury 70 a mans
business is san injury to property. He
Thought It wholesome thing % have the
rights OF laborers and manufacturers estab-
lished by trial. The fifth couIt Of the in
dlctment was nolle pressed by the district
attorney, but the other motion ofthe defend
ants counsel was overruled by the court A
jury was then empannelled. The indict-
ment was read to the defendants by the
clerk, Whitman. MeGeough is about 35
years old and O'Keefe slightly younger. The
TWO nrst counts of the indictment charge
conspiracy. with intent to injure and impoy-
erish Charles Harrington q Sns, leather
manufacturers, of Salem, by conspiracy to
prevent Francis +. Emery, shoe
manufacturer of Plymouth, from
buying or using leather of said Har-
rlngton. The third and fourth counts allege
the purposes Of the defendants tt injure the
business of +. II. Emery
District Attorney Bumpus outlined the
governments case. Conspiracy a combi-
NATHAN entered into by two or m)re persons
70 reach result by unlawful neaus. We
nave no statute in the State to crer the case
but depend upon common claw. 1t will ap.
pear IN in your course of trial that 4. i.
Emery had 800 men working in his Plymouth
shoe manufactory on June 16, that they (de-
1endants) waited on Floyd, the snperintend-
ent OF the shop and inquired if h, was using
Harrington leather. They told aim a boy
colt had been put upon it, and il was their
purpose to drive Harrington out If business.
They, said they belonged to Assembly III.
knights of Labor. Floyd declired to talk
and the men said they would hare the EN-.
ployes out of the shop if he did lot agree to
stop using Harrington's leather. Floye de-
cllned to accede to the demand aud the men
lett work. Sometime later at 2 conference
between the defendants and Emery the lat
ter against his will consented to give M the
use OF the leather in the shop and buy no
more. He would show that the defendants
TOOK room near Harrington's store in Boston.