Morning journal and courier., 1886-07-28

another is relieved of it's otherwise criminal
 badness. because of the selfish motives of the boycotters, as that of a judge.
 On the matter of authority it is an ele- mentary principle laid down without excep tion by all criminal writers, and enforced by all decisions, that a combination of several persons to injure and ruin another in his business, trade or occupation, not through the laws of competition, but directly and in tentionally, is criminal conspiracy. It is not laid down anywhere in the books that
 such conspiracy ceases to be criminal or is not criminal because the motives of the con- spirators are to Intentionally inj ure the busi- ness of another in order to bring him within the power of the confederates.
 MT. Bishop in his latest work on criminal law under the head of conspiracy expressly states that if it be proved that the combined intent exists to directly iniure and break up | the business of the employer the combination l remains a criminal conspiracy, though it be shown that the object of the conspirators is | to compel the employer to submit to
 their will and employ them, for he says. with truth, for an l through such means is for him to become a l s'puppet' in the hands of the conspirators, | and for him to abandon his business. Some | other parties have forced themselves into his
 business, and it is no longer exclusively his l business "A stronger than he has bound | him and carried him whither he would not. :" Powderly is quoted in the public prints as l saying, ''Boycotting is killing mans busi- ness" We submit that this terse and pithy | definition is correct, and certainly the opin- | ion of the author is of the highest authority. The charge says that boycotting is crimi- l nal if the expenses of the boycott are de- I manded, for F'the money does not belong" to l the boycotters. No more does the business of the employer belong to the boycotters, no
 more does working for the employer be- l long to the boycotters. A combination to take away a mans business-to take away a | mans natural right-by acts of direct injury, | is just as bad and criminal as to take away bis money.
 So, too, the authorities all agree that com binations which are injurious to the public welfare are criminal. It cannot be disputed ! that this boycotting combination is detri- mental to the public peace and welfare. In ! it's very essence it is most inhuman and un- Christian. It is built up entirely on the 1 basis that the boycotters can and will compel others to do their will, not because their cause is right, but solely because they can | and will injure others ii they don't. It is
 not based on the fright of personal iber- ty." It is based upon the theory that the boycotters can and will coerce the personal liberty of the COURIER and its subscribers and patrons through fear of loss and danger, and when they have eoerced it, when their conspiracy has succeeded, they say in justi- fication: "Our victims wished and had the legal right to go on doing business with the COURIER, but they did not dare to exercise it." If such combinations are not an injury to the prosperity of the country, if they do not tend to disturb the good order of soei- ety, if they not inj furious to everybody, even those engaged in them, we fail to un- derstand them
 To conclude: It is the unlawful purpose to break up and injure the COURIER and it's iYt thair hr1Sir Ot through the laws of competition. but for no other reason than that the COURIER and its workmen exercise their natural freedom of action, that makes this conspiracy criminal. If the purpose of many confederates be unlawful it does not relieve the illegal char acter of the conspiracy that the means adopted be such as that each of the confed- crates acting singly and without combination might use them. What is punishable by the common law is the power of many acting in concert to do evil. The intent of the many is of course the important question.
 In this case it is admitted that the imme- diate intent of the many is to iniure the bus mess of the COURIER and to force it to dis charge its workmen. The charge says this ''intent" is criminal if it had no motive of personal gain. The charge recognizes that the right of the advertisers and subscribers
 to withdraw their business from the COURIER has but little to do with the intent of the confederates in causing them to withdraw their patronage.
 Is the immediate intent of the many acting in secret combination to directly injure another mans business relieved of it's crimi- nal taint because the many hope, through doing such injury, to force from such other man against his natural freedom of will, some benefit to themselvesa And if so, does 1t make any difference whether it is ''work" or ''money" that is to be gota We submit that the power of many for public mischief character in the one case as in the other. At the conclusion of the arguments Judge Deming asked that all the papers in the case be turned over to him, and he then an- nounced that he would look the law on the matter up thoroughly and render his decision on Saturday morning.