Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1886-11-16
BOYCOTTING CRIMINAL.
Judge Brigham on the Rights of Capital
and Labor.

PLYMOTH, Mass, November 18th
great boycott trial has resulted in a disa
greement of the jury. The feature of tn
trial was the charge of Chief Justic
Brigham. He said:
obviously this prosecution is the re
suit of a controversy between labOrers ant
the employers OF laborers, in relation +
their respective rights and interests. Ii
such controversy laborers have a legs
right to combine, in any form of aSsOcia
ton, to, enhance the value or Il
diminish the hardships of their labor, ant
employers of labOrers to have legal righ
to combine in any form of association, t.
diminish the cost of the labor which they
employ, and to regulate and control such
labor. The incidental and direct result
of such combinations on the part of labor
ers may be that the profits of those who
employ such labOrers may be impaired
and their business deranged. The acci
dental and direct results Of such cOmbina'
tiOnS on the part of the employers of labor
may be that labOrers may be obliged to
accept reduced wages, irregular employ
ment, and more rigorous conditions of la
bOr Such are the legal rights of laborers
and employers of labor, which arise out Oi
one established principle that every free
man, whether skilled labOrer, mechanic,
farmer, or domestic servant, may, ut his
own option, work or not work, or refuse
to work with any other persons, or in any
kind of manufacturing business, and that
any employer of labor may, at his OWL
option, employ or not employ, or refuse tC
employ any labOrer.
These rights of labOrers and the EN-
plOyers of labor respectively are IN equa
force in the matters of labor and the EN-
ployers of labor, and afford no license tC
labOrers or employers Of labor to uSt
against each other in furtherance of theil
respective interests, fraud or force, mora
or physical, to enforce upon employers o
labor, against their wills, the employ mem
of persons or the discharge Of any labOrer:
employed by them, or to enforce upoI
labOrers the acceptance of employment Ol
wages against their will.
The principle stated extends to manu-
facturers, giving them the legal right t.
manufacture, ut their own option, any
kind or quality of product not prohibited
by law, and the legal right of other manu-
facturerS at their own option to purchas,
and use such products. The right of ;
laborer to labor or not to labor, at his op
tiOn, for any person in any process Of man
uiacture, or in the use of any materia
is no more an established leGa
right or more under the protection
of the law than the right of an employs
of labor at his option to purchase tina
| labor, and use materials of any quail
/ ity manufactured by any person
Such being the respective legal rights o
/ labOrers, employers of laborerS, and man
uflcturers, any interference OF, either will
the stated rights of either of the Others, BY
| fraudulent or forcible means-that is Il
say, means which were physically con
| trolling and cOerciye, or morally cOntroll
| ing and cOercive, by reason of a persona
| or official influence, which the persons
proposing TO use that influence knew tina
/ they could use upon the persons to whom
! they intended to apply that influence $,
/ that il would have the force and effect o
coercion and cOmpulsiOn, i'll whatSoeve
/ form of words or acts that iniluene Shoul(
| be expressed, would be unlawful ant
criminal; and if two or more persons com
bined and conspired to use such means IL
such interference they would be guilty o
criminal conspiracy.
This prosecution raises no question o
the merits of any controversy or contiic
between the defendants personally or an.
association of labOrers known as tn
Knights OF Labor, of which the defendant
were members, with Charles Harrington
Co, or with Francis F. Emery, upon tn
questions, whether such Knights of LabO
should or not be employed by Charlie
Harrington & Co, or whether Charlie
Harrington & Co. should manufacture o
refuse to manufacture leather by tn
labor of Knights of Labor, or whethe
Francis f. Emery should purchase an,
use in his business leather manufacture
by Charles Harrington & Co. without tn
/ labor Of the Knights of Labor.
/ The question Ofthis trial is, whethe
/ the defendants conspired to do the &c
| alleged in the indictment with the puI
pose and to the end alleged in the indict
ment.
THE evidence on the part OF the Com
monwealth must prove beyond a reason
able doubt, but if the unlawful scheme G
McGeOgh alleged in the indictment wa
formed, O'Keefe actually cOOperated j
the purpose and intent of that scheme b
his counsel, support, and acts. If thrOug
the influence which the defendants ha
they conspired to apply in any form c
words, defendants knowing tha
such words would when aC
dressed to the labOrers in Fran
els F. Emery's shop have the force an
effect of coercion and compulsiOn, and dt
PENDANTS cOnspired with intent and pul
pose by such influence to cOerce Franci
F. Emery into abandoning and discard
idg the use Of all leather purchased b
him of Charles Harrington q Co. for us
in his business, and compelling him
purchase no more such leather, they cor
Spired to use unlawful and criminal NEAR
to iniure the trade and business Of Emer
aud of Charles Harrington 4 Co, an
may be found guilty on either or all
the four counts of the indictment.