Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-23

prive some of their 'fpersonal liberty" by making it for the selfish interest of all oth- CTS to exercise their right of personal iber- ty-not to deal with the victims. But in fact there is no appeal to the personal lib erty" of others not to deal with the victim The "request' is, 'tjoin us in our effort to compel the COURIER to discharge it's servants in our effort to drive those servants out of their trade Do your part in helping us by withdrawing all your business from the COURIER. If you do not comply with this request we will treat you as we are treating the COURIER This is our request and this our argument
 If this be an appeal to personal liberty, what is despotisn?
 Will any merchant in New Haven say that MT. Glidden has used any other argument than that the COURIER employed non-union men, that Glidden and his friends and asso- ciates, two thousand in number, as he boasts, belonged to some union or organization, and that if the particular merchant did not, on being acquainted with these facts and these facts only, cease soon as he could to do business with the COURIER, he would suffer very serious loss in his businessa The edi- tor of the News is entirely right when he says that such conduct as this is Ian abuse of personal liberty"
 boycotting combination does not appeal to the reason of the persons who have deal ings with it's victims. Those persons are called upon to yield to the demand of the boycotters, not because the boycotters are right in their quarrel with their victim, but because the boycotters can and will injure the business of persons dealing with the vic tim. It is a conspiracy to maintain each other, right or wrong.'
 To say that combination pure and simple to drive printers out of their trade is not il- legal has no justification anywhere. To say that ombination is to injure the JOURNAL AND COURIER, for no other reason than to compel 1t to discharge it's servants, is con- fessedly illegal, being an "abuse of personal liberty"
 The legal question which the ''charge' has thrown out for public criticism seems to be this: Is a combination organized to over come, and therefore FFabuse" the "personal liberty" of the COURIER and of its work men, and therefore 'Ean injury to society," not unlawful because the conspirators want to get something for themselves. Without such motive the charge is that such combi nations are unlawful, being wanton and ma- licious attacks on personal liberty.
 But may the personal liberty of the CoUR- TER and it's workmen be attaeked-by host of conspirators, not through the laws of ompetition-but directly and distinctly, and unjustihable all agree, and with the avowed object of overcoming such personal liberty, simply because the conspirators hope to gain by the victorys Is it the motive of ooLhoh SoAhJ OA oAAC JuoO 11SAIS Oi oGACIS, Ou which rests the foundation of obligation?
 It seems to us that to say that this boycott of the COURIER, being an "abuse of person al liberty" and Gan injury to society,"" is le- gal or illegal, according to whether it is be- ing carried on wantonly or for gain, is dis tinction of the same character as to say that 8 conspiracy to tar and feather 6 man and 1ide him on rail would be illegal, because it had motive of selfish gain; while a conspiracy to pound him, until you made him work for you would be legal, having motive of selfish gain.
 Both and all conspiracies, which are in "abuse of personal liberty" or injurious to society,"" are illegal, and they are none the less abuses of the personal liberty of oth CTS, or injurious to society, because the conspirators, like thieves, hope to get gain by their acts.