Morning journal and courier., 1886-04-15
The IlIegality of Boycottins.

\ ana greatly 6XcelS III the renOer1ng Of paSSa- ges by great authors His attainments com prise wide range of literature.
 The IlIegal1ty of Boycotting. ! From the New York Evening Postl Public interest in the boycott upon Mrs. Gray's bakery continues to grow The most noticeable feature of it is the increasing de- sire to have the instigators of the boycott | brought to punishment. We pointed out yesterday that this could be done through | the district attorneys office, since the boy. l cotters were clearly liable to fine and impris
 onment for conspiracy, libel and blackmail The law is very clear in making a eombina- ! tion of this kind conspiracy. A very in | teresting decision on this point was given by ! the Supreme court of this State in 1885. Some journeymen shoemakers in Geneva, ! Ontario county, formed combination for ! the purpose of preventing any journeymen I shoemakers in that village from making a ! certain kind of coarse boots for less price ' than one dollar pair. Any member of this | association who made boots for less price ! was to pay penalty of ten dollars, and all members were pledged to refuse to work for any master shoemaker paying a less price. shoemaker named Pennock made pair of boots for all employer named Lum for seven ty-fve cents; whereupon all of Lum's work
 
 until he discharged Pennock and promised not to employ him again. The district at torney of Ontario county had several of the members of the Shoemakers' association in dicted for conspiracy to do an act of injury to trade, and upon demurrer to the indict-
 ment it was held good by the Supreme court of the State.
 The opinion in the case was given by Chief
 Justice Savage, in which he held that a con- spiracy of journeymen workmen of any trade or handicraft to raise wages by enter ing into combinations to coerce journeymen or master workmen employed in the same
 trade or business to conform to rules estab lished by such combination for the purpose
 of regulating the price of labor, and carry ing such rules into effect by overt acts, was ''An act injurious to trade or commerce, " within the meaning of the Revised Statutes, and as such misdemeanor. The chief jus tice used the following language in the course of his opinions:
 All combinations, therefore, to effect such an object are injurious not only to the indi- vidual particularly oppressed, but to the public at large. In the present case an in dustrious man driven out of employ ment by the unlawful measures pursued by the defendants, and an injury done to the
 community, by diminishing the quantity of productive labor and of internal trade. In so far as the individual sustains injury, the remedy by indictment is taken away by our revised statutes, and the sufferer is left to his action on the case; but in so far the public are concerned, in the embarrassment to trade by the Encouragement of industry, the defendants are liable to punishment by indictment. If combinations of this de- scription are lawful in Geneva they are so in every other place. If the bootmakels may say that boots shall not be made for less than one dollar per pair, it is optional with them to say that ten dollars even fifty dollars cI, o11 ba f
 boots without giving such price as the jour- neymen bootmakers may choose to require. This I apprehend would be a monopoly of the most odious kind. The journeyman me- chanics might, by fixing their own wages, regulate the price of all manufactured arti- cles, and the community be enormously taxed. Should the journeymen bakers re- fuse to work, unless for enormous wages which the master bakers could not afford to pay, and should they compel all the journey men in the city to stop work, the whole pop ulation must be without bread The truth is that industry requires no such means to support it. Competition is the life of trade If the defendants cannot make coarse boots for less than one dollar per pair let them refuse to do so, but let them not di- rectly or indirectly undertake to say that others shall not do the work for less price. It may be that Pennock, from greater indus try or greater skill, made more profit by
 
 than the defendant at one dollar. He had right to work for what he pleased. His em- ployer had right to employ him for such price as they could agree upon. The inter ference of the defendants was unlawful; it's tendency is not only to individual oppres- sion, but to public inconvenience and em- barrassment.
 few years after this decision the same question came before the Court of Common Pleas and an elaborate opinion was written by Chief Justice Daly, in which he differed from the Supreme court upon the question of the mere association of workmen to in crease wages being a nlisdemeanor, and after most elaborate and learned investigation of the law on the subject stated as the result of his examination that it is lawful for any number of journeymen or master workmen to agree on the one part that they will not work below certain rates, or on the other that they will not pay certain price, but that an association or combination for the purpose of compelling journeymen or em- ployers to conform to any rule, regulation or agreement fixing the rate of wages to which they are not parties, by the imposition of penalties, by agreeing to quit the service of an employer who employs journeyman be- low certain rates, unless the journeyman pays the penalty imposed by the combina- tion, CT by menaees, threats or intimida-
 tions, violence or other unlawful means, is 8 conspiracy for which the parties entering into it may be indicted"
 This view of the law was practically adopted by the legislature of 1870, when an
 act was passed providing that the provisions of the statutes regarding conspiracy, quo
 ted by us yesterday, ''shall not be construed in any court in this State to restrict pro- hibit the orderly and peaceable assembling or cooperation of persons employed in any profession, trade or handicrsft sfor the pur-
 pose of securing an advance in the rate of wages or compensation, for the mainte- nance of such rate" The principle as thus modified has been uniformly maintained by the courts in several cases and the general doctrine established that any agreement or conspiracy to commit act injurious to trade is illegal. Upon the enactment of the penal code in 1881 the definition of conspir- acy was enlarged, and new provision was inserted declaring it misdemeanor for two or more persons to conspire-
 5. To prevent another from exercising a | lawful trade or calling, or doing any other 1 lawful act, by force, threats, intimidation, or by interfering or threatening to interfere with tools, implements or property belong l ing to or used by another, or with the use or | employment thereof.
 The provisions of the statute of 1870, in | regard to peace ble and orderly combina- l tions, quoted by us above, were at the same 1 time added to the penal code,- where they stand as section ITO. Together they make the law so clear that there can be no misun- | derstauding it. There is not the slightest | doubt that the use of the boycott as an aid | in a strike is a conspiracy against trade, ana | punishable by fine and imprisonment Mrs. l l7rays case has excited widespread interest | and indignation because the victim is wo-
 man, but otherwise the boycott upon her 1 bakery does not differ from that used in