Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-20
THE BOYCOTT.
TcoNr1suED FROM THIRD pAeE.l

conspiracy to force. the plalntlH 10 accede 10
their wishes by rendering the lease valueless 10
her if she persisted in holding to it, and for that
purpose to deprive the plantations OF labor oy
thre ats persuasions and other inducements ad-
dressed to the laoorers. In prosecuting this com
MN intent, they did visit the said plantations
repeatedly in the early part OF the year 1881,
while the plaintiff was making her arrange
ments with the laborers thereon for the then
current gear, and they old, by means OF threats,
perguasions and otherwise, induce the laborers
TO refuse TO contract or TO ebaldon their con-
tracts with the plaintiff and to leave the plan
tations. These acts were done with no legltl-
mate purpose of securing labor for themselves
by offering superior inducements, but solely for
the purpose OF injuring the plaintiff and OF
preventing her rom deriving any beneht from
Eef lease. The result was that all of the labor
ers on one of the plantations abandoned 1t, and
the place remained uncuitivated during the
year A considerable Lumber of those on the
other place a'so left it, and q large part OF the
land lay idle in consequence 1t is manifest
that these acts, thus wantonly and malc ously
zone by the defendants, were, III the sense OF
the law faults that IS, acts done in the exercise
Of no legal rights of their own and in violation
OF the rights and feelings of the plaintiff, who
cut interference or hinderance by defendants.
For The damages resulting from such acts the
defendants are responsible
The pTincip ma.ntair ed in this case, as well
as in the curfento of authority is Eat al persons
have legal right to conduct any legitimate
business, and employ laborers IN aid thefeof,
without the wanIon or willfdl interference
by others to prevent laborerS entering the en-
ploy of the propTietors of such business, and
any such interfere nce by third persons with me
laboraTs OF emplogeS is an infringement upon
the rights of botn laborer and employer, In
the State VS. Donaldson (S2 n. j. Law Rep, lll),
Chief Justice 3easley, in delivering the opinion
of the Court said 1T appears TO me not to be
denied that the alleged aim OF this combination
YVES unlawful. The effort was to dictate to THIS
employer whom he should discharge from his
empl ~. If The manufacturer can be compelled
in th,s way to discharge two or more hands. ne
can by similar means tie coerced to retain such
woIkmen as the conspir1torS choose to des1g-
nate; 50, his customers may be prescribed and
his business in other respects controlled. can
not egard such q course of conduct as lawful.
III Crump VS. ComWonwealth Is Southeastern
Rep 629l, cited hereto ore, the Court said: The
men who WALK up and Gown i'll front OF n an S
shop may be guilty of intimidation, though they
never raise finger or utter word. Thelr attl-
tude may nevertheless be that of menace. They
may intimidate by their numbers their plead
ings, their methods, their circulars ard their de-
wees. 1t matters little what are the means
adopted by combination formed to intim1dale
employees OF to coerce other journeymen, II the
design or the effect of them is to interfere with
the rights or TO control the free act OF
others. No one has right to be hedged in
ana protected from competition i'll business;
hut he has light TO be free from Wanton, ma
Gcious, and insolent Interference disturbance
or annoyance. Every man has the night to
work for whom he pleases aud for any price he
can ODtAiu. anu ne mas Lut right 10 utdl WI IL
and associate with whom he chooses or to let
severely alone. arbitrarily and contemporary,
If he viii, anybody and everybody on earth;
but this freedom of uncontrolled and uuchal-
lenged seit-will does not give or imply right
either by himself or in combination with others
to isturb iujure or obStIuct another, either di-
reetly or indirectly in his lawful business or
occupation, or in his peace or security OF life.
Every ate mpt by force, threat, or intimidation,
to deter or control an employer ii the determl-
nation OF whom he Will employ or what wages
he vii pay is an act OF wrong and oppression;
and every combination foT such purpose Is an
unlawful conspiracy. The law viii protect tn
victim and punish the movers of any such com
bination. IN law the ofenSe is the combina-
ton f.r the purpose and no overt act is neces-
Sary 10 constitute il. a wanton, upproYoked in
business o. another or the purpose of con-
Straining that other 10 discharge faithful
and long tried servants or to employ,
whom he does not wish, or will to en-
ploy, an Interference with intent to pre-
du e anu hEely to produce annoyance and
loss to that business, Will be restrained and
punished by the criminal law, as oppressive to
the individual s. injurious to the prosperity OF
the community, snd subversive of the peace
ana good der of society,"
The case of Crump VS.. Commonwealth was
criminal pro ,ecution, but i. illustrates the law
applicable to the case in hand, and is an author
ity to show that the acts complained of in this
action are I'm awful.
The counsel for The defense cite and rely upon
o
'R ghtS Remedies and Practice as supporting
their contention that the defendants have not
VIC ated any of the legal rights of the plaintiffs.
There ale some express Gus in 1t which give
some colorado support TO such contention but
when carefully examined 1t Will be seen that it
affords no support. In that section the au-
thor says: "a conspiracy TO obtain from mas.
ter mechanic money which he is under no legal
leave him, and by lettering others from enter
ing into his employ or by threatening to do this,
so that he is inouced to pay the money demand
ed under q reasonable apprehension that he
canno. carry on his business without yielding
to the demand, is an Illegal conspiracy; and
the money thus obtained may be recovered back
from the conspifipg parties, who are also
liable for all damages to the business of
such mechanic oecasioned BY such illegal
acts" In support of his doctrine he cites Cdrew
VS.. Rutherford Q06 Mass u, already cited in
this opinion. On principle it is parallel with
the case now before the Court. In that casethe
plaintiff was eng ged in the business OF cutting
fres stone, and employed great many work
men. He had entered into contract with
hui! ders to furnish them with such stone in
larze quantities, but he allowed some of the
bull Tiers with whom he had made contracts to
withdraw ir II his shop part OF the work he
had contracted 10 do and 10 procure the same to
be done out of the State. For this otfense the
JOGrneyman's Freestone Cutters Association
passed resolution TO the effect that q fine of
$3.50 was imposed UPON the plaintiff. The reso-
luton was read to him, and he was threatened
power of the Association, cause a great number
Of the woIkmen employed by him to leave his
service He refused to pay It, and the AsSocla-
tiOn-the d. fendan s-caused twelve of his
workmen 10 leave his service. They also threat
ened MIN that, unless he paid the fine, they
would, by the power OF the Association. prevent
him from obtaining suitable wOrkmen fer carry
ing on his business, q they CID prevent him
TIL be paid the fine. The fine was to coupen-
safe the wOrkmen for what they might have
earned if they had done the work which was
done elsewhere. The Court decided that the
conspiracy 10 accomplish such purpose
was unlawful. and gave judgment for the
plaintiff that he recover his money back with
damages for loss TO his business by the acts of
the Association. Z he same character OF claim
is made by the defendants in this case with ref
erenee 10 the stereotype plates obtained from
the East, aud the claim IS condemned by the
same principles of law. Then, instead OF the
ST ton relied on by the defendants counsel
f. n Lawson being an authority TO sustain their
D itiou, IL is 4 direct authority IN support Of
Il case of the plaintiff.
The learned Counsel for the eftudan's rely
upon the case Of Payne VS.. Railroad Company
q Lea sou, and this case seems to support their
position; but it was decided by divided Court
The Court consisted of five Judges The major
ity opinion was delivered by InFersol Spe-
cial Judge hut which two of the regular Judges
cOnCurred in the opinion am " able TO sscer-
TAIN but an able and exhaustive dissenting
opinion wSs delivered by Freeman and con
CURED in by -. J. in the majority opinion,
delivered by IngerSol special Judge, the Court
said "If the defendants, by means of threats
and intimid ations, have driven away plaintiff 5
customers and thus destroyed his trade, they
have injured him b. an unlawful act, and are
liable TO him for damages, whether they did 1t
wickedly or malieiCusly or not; for It
is unlawful TO threaten and intimi-
date ones customers; and the loss OF
trade is the natural and proximate re-
SUI OF such acts The Court after laying down
this correct principle OF law, hy course OF
soplis ticRl reasoning arrived at the illogical
cor c,usion that the defendants for doing the
very things the Court had said it was unlawful
10 dc, was not liable and that the plaintiff
could not recover The decision of the majority
OF the Court in that case stands alone, and in
view of the sble dissenting opinion in the case
cannot he considered as authority. The case OF
orr vs. Home Mutual Insurance Company %,
Am Dec 5 c. y La Am. Rep. 30 is not IN
point. IN that case III ee insurance companies
combined aud conf-derated together, and
sgreed that they would not insure anything on
any ste ner on which plaintiff might be EN-
ployed, nor adventure any risk on such
steamer by reason Of which the owner Of the
steamboat Red River discharged the plaintiff
This the insurance companies might lawfully
do. They had right for any reason which