Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-19


 poration for themselves, their associates
 and friends, and as means of compelling
 the corporation to yield to their demands, to
 threaten such corporation and it's customers
 with loss of patronage, if they add to that
 threat threat to continue such withdrawal
 of such patronage from the Darlington Pub
 fishing company and it's customers unless or
 until money was paid to them a part of
 the expenses of withdrawing such patronage.
 The accused have no right to demand money
 under those circumstances. It is not their
 money. So, continued the court, it would be
 an unlawful and criminal conspiracy for the
 accused to conspire to ruin the business of the Darlington Publishing company by con- certed means of inducing all persons to with draw their patronage from such corporation by means of threats; but if the object be
 to better their condition, to advance and fix their rate of wages, or further their own ma terial interests, there is nothing criminal in such action.
 The court here referred to the opinion of the court in the English case referred to the day before in the Master Stevedores' associa- tion Walsh. In this case the men combin- ed for raise of wages, which was not 1ndlct- able nor conspiracy He also referred to the case of Commonwealth vs. Hunt, 4 Metc. III, and to the case of the Hartford carpet Weav- CTS tried before the Superior court of Con- l necticut, in 1886, in both of which cases the combination was made simply to secure g
  court referred at length to the chief iustice's decision in the latter case, which was simply favorable to labor combinations 1 whose object was to keep up the price of ! wages. The court referred to the case of Carew vs. Rutherford, Supreme court of Massachusetts, in which it was held that 'it was no crime for any number of persons without an unlawful object in view, to asso- ciate themselves together and agree that they will not work for nor deal with certain men or classes of men, or work under certain I price or without certain conditions" The of lawfulness. The court then proceeded to discuss this point as to the on trial, and if there was combination in the case for unlawful puT- poses. "I have said that the accused had right to decline to work for the Darlington Publishing company and to say that no one associated with them should take employ ment from said corporation; that they and their associates would cease to patronize the corporation and would withdraw their pat ronage from it's customers unless union men, being their associates, are employed eXclu- sively. But they had no right to demand sum of money from the corporation, nor to threaten that such demand would be made if the corporation did not accede to their de- mands to be so employed. If there did any two or more of them enter into such com bination they are guilty"
 
 lawful threats and intimidation were used. Upon that subject the law was defined to be "a threat to be illegal must be threat to in- hict violence, or do some specific illegal act to the person or property to whom the threat is addressed" The court then took up the request to charge made to him, taking up first the defendants request The first was a request to charge that Busche ought to be acquitted. The court said of that the jury would judge. As to the second request the court held ''that if it means this, that a combination and conspiracy in the abstract third the judge held that if the object of q conspiracy is to ruin man pub fishing newspaper, if the object is to op- press him, to vex destroy his business, if wanton, malicious mischief is the object and the intent of the conspiracy, then the con spiracy is criminal; but if the object is the advancement of the conspirators' material interests they may say to the proprietor of that newspaper we will withdraw patron age from you and your customers unless you employ us or our associates on your paper. ''It depends upon the object of the conspir- aey whether it is lawful or not" "It is not criminal or unlawful for men to combine to ] induce the proprietor of a newspaper to em- ploy them and their associates by giving or withholding their patronage or inducing their friends to do so. Thus charge you. :" As to the next request the judge said it was alTeaQy covered III WlaC naO been SalQ- AS to the next the court said of course the con- spiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As to the next the court said that of course if the object of a conspiracy was ille- gal it must be proven so beyond reasonable doubt The accused must be found to have
 combined for an illegal purpose and used il- legal means to effect it. The seventh re- quest was as to the word boycott. The l court held the word had not yet ! on this side of the water at least acquired an ! exact legal meaning and therefore the threat I to boycott is not necessarily. to do an illegal l act. The acts done in pursuance of boy colt differ and differ essentially in different parts of the country. So the jury in this case were to look st the precise acts done or threatened to be done in view to deter mine as to their legality or illegality.
 The court then consulted requests to charge handed him by the prosecution. The first was: ''It is crime and punisha- ble such when two or more persons com bine and agree together by concerted action to unlawfully injure another in his person, property or business. Such a combination or agreement is in law denominated con- spiracy." The court held: "While that is perhaps well enough definition, yet have given you what believe to be an ac- tual definition, so I will not change that" The next question was: ''The unlawful injury intended to be done need not be any
 injury which if done would subject the per petrators to a criminal prosecution"
 It is sufficient if the in jury intended be so unlawful as to amount to civil injury or to
 be wholly unjustifable. It is not necessary
 in order to constitute criminal conspiracy
 that the purpose of the conspiracy should be necessarily criminal. Under some circurn- stances, if the object and purpose of the conspiracy be unlawful, the conspiracy
 is an indictable conspiracy. The State
 claims in this case that combination and agreement existed between the accused and others to inf1ict and cause two separate inj ju-
 ries-one to the Darlington Publishing com pany and the other to the several employees of the said company in depriving them of their employment, which they were then
 peaceably enjoying. 'tIf the jury find that
 the accused, or any two of them, or any one
 of them, with the others combined and
 agreed to do or cause to be done set of
 acts for the distinct and direct purpose of
 lessening and injuring the business of and
 causing loss to said company, the
 injury intended amounts to
 criminal conspiracy" I do not
 think this is an act ual statement of the law.
 It depends very largely upon intent of the
 conspiracy and upon the intent of the acts.
 The mere combination of persons to lessen and injure the business of corporation is
 not necessarily criminal for if it were no two persons could combine together and set up a rival establishment. To ascertain the criminality of the acts said to be done by these persons, in this behalf, we ought to go further and revert to the distinctions that