Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-20

any kind of dealings with, and in preventing
others from working for, buying from selling
to. assisting or having any KIND OF dealings
with person or company, on account of politi-
cal or other differences, or OF dtsagreements IN
business matters, as means of inffcting pun
tshments, or coercing or lntimidating;" and
| when used as q noun, the same photographer
defines it thus: IAN organized attempt to CO.
! cree person or party INTO compliance with
| some demand by combining to abstain, and
compel others to abstain, from having any bust
ness or social relations with him, OF them; an
| organized persecution of person or company,
as a means of coercion or Intimidation or
OF retaliation for some act or refusal to act
| In particular way" In Andersons Diction-
airy of Law, the word is given substan-
TALLY the same definition, but the lexieo-
| grapher adds: THE word itself implies a
/ threat" and it might be said that universally
wherever the English language is spoken the
word is understood to apply or mean, combi-
nation of persons TO use, not only threats and
| intimidations, but to use any other means law
full or unlawful, to accomplish purpose. While
combination or conspiracy, such as shown in
this case, is not within the definition of crimi-
nal conspiracies as contained in Section 1Sl of
| the Penal Code, and therefore is not crime in
| spiracies other than those enumerated in the
! preceding section are punished criminaliy;' yet
such conspiracies were criminal at common
law. And these sections OF the Penal Code are
only so far a restriction upon the rule OF the
common law as to take away the criminality of
such conspiracies; but the rule of the common
law LndL IQey were unl4WIul IeudluS III iOICe.
IN the absence of any statute or code provision
the rules of the common law of England is the
rule of decision in all the Courts in this State
made SO by Section 446S OF the Political Code
The common law of England was, and is,
broader and more pronounced than the common
law prevailing in most of the States in the
Union. 1t afforded not only ample civil RENE
dies. but criminal remedy also against combi-
nations and conspiracies like the one shown in
the complaint in this action But in this case it
is not necessary to go further than the rules of
the common law of this country for rule of de-
cison in this case. The common law upon the
subject before the Court modified in this
country is well and clearly stated by Judge
| Cooley in his learned work on the law Of Torts
vent employment is intended combination of
| two or more persons to accomplish by some con-
| certed action an unlawful end to the injury of
| another. 1t was shown in previous chapter
| that the conspiracy was not in itself legal
wrong; it is thing sIniss when it has an IN
| lawful purpose in view; but it does not become
legal wrong until the unlawful is accomp-
| lished, or until some act distinctly illegal is
| done towards its accomplishment" and at
| page $50 he says: But the acts of one in puT-
suance OF the conspiracy may be unlawful in
themselves If they include deception, threats,
intimtcatlols or any species OF duress whatever,
| whether employed upon the laboIer or en-
| ployer. Anyone has the undoubted right to
| refuse to be employed by another, but he has no
| right whatever to resort to compulsion of any
| sort to keep others from the employment. A
| society of men may lawfully unite in agreeing
| that they will not perform services for those
! who employ laborers not associated with them,
| but they become wrong-dO5rs the moment they
| interfere with the liberty of action of Others"
Then, under the rule OF law as stated BIS this
| learned author, the defendants became wrong
doors the moment they did any act in pur-
suanee of their conspiracy or combination
| to prevent laborers from entering the en-
| ploy of the plaintiffs, and to ipjure the good
will of tn. business of the Plaintiffs and to de-
preciate the value of their property; and they
i only Wr0lQ-dOprs un1pr This rrlla NJ
| the common law but they were wrong-doers
under Section l7GS of the Civil Code, by which
| they were bound to abstain from injur to the
property of the plaintiffs and from infringing
upon any Of their rights. The rule of the COM
mon law, as stated by Judge Cooley is fully
sustained upon principle and abundantly sup
hep. III, s. C. SO VI. !273 and note to the case:
| Crump VS.. Commonwealth, 6 Southeastern Rep
620; Chipley VS.. Atkinson. Southern Rep. 934;
Hilton VS.. Eckersley, 6 Fl. and b. Az Lumley
| VS.. eye, 2 Fl. and 81. PIC; Ridge vs. Rollins, II
A. and E., n. S., GIL In Greenwood on Public
Policy 64s, the author says: Combinations of
artisans for their common benefit or for the de-
velopment of skill in their trade, or to prevent
overcrowding therein, or to encourage those be-
longing to their trade to enter their guild or for
the purpose of raising prices, are valid; pro-
vided, no force or other unlawful means be EN-
p.oyed to carry out their acts, or their object be
not to impoverish Third persons, or to extort
money from employees or to encourage strikes,
or breaches of contract, or to restrict the free
uOul VI luClnUcIs TIC puIpOsS Oh competing
employees to conform to their rules"
We may add, that when the things
enumerated in this proyiso are re-
sorted to as a means of accomplishing
their purpose the persons so combining are
wrong-doers. and liable for their acts, and to
this effect is the whole current of authority.
| (Webber vs.. Barry, 50 Northwestern Rep. $50;
In re. Doolittle, % Fed. Rep 544; United States
VS.. Kane. D Fed. Rep. 74S; Old Dominion Steam
ship Co. VS.. McKenna 30 Fed. Rep 49, Bixley
VS.. Dunlap, p Am: Rep. AIS; s. C. Sc, n. H. 456
and note thereto; Editorial Article on the Sub
ject of Boycotting, IS Albany Law Journal, 224;
| Hoskins VS.. Royster, l6 Am. Rep. $50; s. c. 70,
n. C. COL and note to that case; Jones VS.. Jeter,
49 Ga. 3Sl; State vs.. Glidden AT. Rep. $50; Ca
| rev VS.. Rutherford, loo Mass. / to 10; Brace
Bros VS.. Evans, Railway and Corporation
Law Journal sol; Commonwealth vs. Shelton,
| II Virginia Law Jour- 32i; Walker VS.. Cronin
I07 Mass. 555: Commonwealth VS.. Curren, 3 Pitt.
| Rep. l43; Darlington VS.. Taylor. II East ST.,
574; Tarlton VS.. McGowley, Peake Dos; Snow VS..
| Wheeler, l13 Mass. 179; Commonwealth VS..
Hunt, 50 Am. Dec. 346; S. C. Met. Ill: Rex VS..
kccles. l Leach or. cas-. pa; SlGreenl ev. Sec
tons 50 and 80; Mogull Steamship Company VS..
| McGregor, p Cent. L. ]. 303: Mapstrick vs.
| Ramage, 9 Neb. $50; Jones vs. Baker, Cowen
90 spTingshead Spinning Company vs.. Riley,
Law Rep; equity cases 55l; Sherry VS.. Per;
| kins, l47 Mass. 2l2; State vs. Donaldson, 3
Nroom. Isl; Bish. Or. L., Sections go, 2Sl, 232
aud 2SS; Master Steyedores Assn. VS.. Walsh, 2
lab; S. &. IS Am. Dec. 6l3; Smith
| VS.. People, 76 Am. Dec. 7S3 and note;
| Wright on Criminal Conspiracies American
note by Carson, II Text. Book Series, p us; Buff
falo Lubricating Oil Company VS.. Everest, 80
| Hun. n. Y. $50; Dickson VS.. Dickson 80 La.
Ann, 1861; Morris Run Coal Company vs. Bar
clay Coal Company, IS Pen. ST., 17S.) The prin-
| ciples of law established by these authorities
fully sustain the rules of the common law as
| stated by Cooley, and may be summed up in
the language of the author of Wright on Crimi
nal Consplracies, page us, cited above, where
he says: The result OF ali the cases, ignoring
matters OF detail or special circumstances, ap-
pears to be as follows: Workmen may combine
lawfully for their own protection and common
| benefit; for the advancement of their own in
| terest, for the development of skill in their
] trade or 10 prevent overcrowding therein, or to
| encourage those belonging to their trade to en-
| ter their guild for the purpose of raising their
| wages or 70 secure benefit which they can
| claim by law. The moment, however they
proceed by threats, in limitations, violence, OBJ
| structions or moles alton in order to secure
| their ends, or where their object be to impoyer-
| ish third persons or to exturt money from their
| employers. or TO ruin their business or TO en-
| courage strikes or breaches of contracts among
others or to restrict the freedom of Others for
| the purpose OF compelling employees to conform
| 10 their views or attempt TO enforce rules upon
| those not members of their association,
| they render themselves liable TO Indictment
| The rights OF workmen are conceded; but the
| exercise of free-will and freedom of action
| within the limits of the law is also secured
| equally to the master. Civil remedies have
been enforced also, both at law and in equity
L
| ing to the class reviewed" We have seen that
| such conspiracies are not indictabe or criminal
| in this State by reason OF the provisions of the
| Penal Code; but they are, nevertheless, unlawful
| when they resort to unlawful means to accom-
| plish tEeir purposes. | will quote some pas
sages from the cases cited. In the case Of Chip
| ley VS.. Atkinson the Supreme Court of Florida
! reviewed the law upon this subject with great
learning and ability, and in delivering the opin-
| ion of the Court said:
Every one has the right 20 enjoy the fruits
| and advantages OF his own enterprise industry,
| skill and credit. He has no right TO be pro-
teeted against skill and competition. but he has
| a right TO be free from malicious and wantOn
/ interference disturbance or annoyance If dis
| turbance or annoyance come as a result of COM
petition or the exercise of like rights by others,
II is damnum absque iDjuria, unless some supe-
ror right, by contract or otherwise,is interfered
| with. But If 1t comes from the mere wanton or
malicious acts of others without the iustiiea-
of any interest, or lawful purpose it
than stands upon different footing, and la S
within the principles of the authorities first re-
ferred to, that IS to say. Comyn's Digest and
others. See a,so, as bearing on the general
question, People VS.. Fisher, IA Wend. l; Rafael
VS.. Verelst W. b., where it was he'd that
trespass lay against defendant for procuring, by
| awe, fear and influence. and contrary to his own
inclination, a sovereign, independent, absolute,
prince 70 imprison the plaintiff. l0ld Dominion
S s Co. VS.. McKenna 50 Fed Rep As; 50 Al
| cult Court, S. D. New York and cases cited
| From the authorities referred 10 in the preced-
| ing paragraph. and upon principle, II is ap-
parent that neither the fact that the term
of service Interrupted is not for q fixed
period, nor the fact that there is not a