The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1891-04-15
The Conspiracy Case.

The Conspiracy Case.
On the trial in Washington county court,
Mr.. Lamson, after a mastery presenta-
tion Of the testimony offered on the part Of
the prosecution and an able reply to the
claims Of the respondents testimony, closed
at 3:l5 Wednesday afternoon, and the
presiding judge at once commenced the
charge to the jury. He said, in substance:
JUDGE MUNsoN's CHARGE.
The respondents, Josiah B. Dyer, Patrick
Morrison, Frank Morrill, and e. ID. Sher-
burne, have been arraigned upon charge
of criminal conspiracy, and have pleaded
not guilty. The substance of the charge is
that the respondents unlawfully conspired
to prevent by violence, threats and intimi-
dation one Jacob Mcclure from continuing
in or obtaining work at his trade as a stone
cutter, with an intent, by such threats and
intimidation, to prevent his obtaining work
that is the first count. The second count is
similar, and charges that intending to de-
stroy free competition in the price OF labor,
and to coerce other granite cutters and to
compel them to join the Granite Cutters
National Union and to prevent such other
granite cutters from obtaining work, the re-
spondents conspired together, as stated.
Conspiracy is corrupt combination or
agreeing together of two or more persons to
accomplish, by some concert of action,
some unlawful purpose, or to accomplish
some purpose, not in itself unlawful by
unlawful means. Even if the purpose is
not carried out, If the proof establishes a
conspiracy by the rule of evidence neces-
sary, it is enough to warrant a conviction.
Our statute makes it unlawful for person
to threaten violence or injury to another
person with intent TO prevent such person
pursuing his ordinary employment. If two
0r'more persons agree together that they
will threaten violence, or injury for the pur-
pose stated, it is, in law, conspiracy.
FAll men charged with criminal offence
are presumed to be innocent, and this pre-
sumption is to rest in the minds of jurors
until it is removed by the force of the evil
dence. A mere preponderance of evidence
is not sufficient. If a reasonable doubt is
found to exist, the respondents should be
acquitted. 1t is claimed that respondents
are members of a certain labor organization,
and that the matters charged originated in
the councils of that organization. 1t is law
full for men to associate for protection of
their interests, but they must enjoy the
right in such way as not to interfere with
the rights of other workmen, not members
of the organization. Mcclure had right
to work for any firm or corporation on such
terms as might be agreed upon, and the
respondents had no right to interfere with
him No man, no body of men, could say
| to him " You shall not work here unless you
| join our union" Actual physical violence
need not be shown. If Mcclure was forced
|
quence, that was enough, if established, to
warrant verdict against respondents. Men
! at work have a right to leave their employ
ment, singly or collectively, but they have no
right to threaten to leave in body to COM
pei the discharge of another workman.
| In order to justify conviction, the re-
spondents must be shown to have acted in
concert with each other, or with persons
unknown. The fact, in and of itself, that
respondents were members of labor union
| is not to weigh against them in the least
| If the Jury found respondents guilty, they
should specify on which count they so found
a verdict, if upon one count and not upon
! both.
THE EXCEPTIONS
Respondents counsel took two or three
exceptions to the charge mainly upon the
ground that there was no evidence to war
rant conviction under the second count.
THE VERDICT.
The Jury returned into court Thursday
morning asking for the reading of testimony
as to Sherburn's completely in the case.
| They retired again and returned twice dis
agreed. On Friday forenoon they came
with a verdict of guilty as to all four re-
spondents. They agreed as to three on the
first ballot and stood at first ten to two, and
then eleven to one, on Sherburn.
AN APPEAL TAKEN
The case goes to the supreme court on eX-
ceptions taken on trial, on alleged erroneous
rulings of the presiding judge in admitting
evidence. Some of these exceptions the re-
spondents' counsel are sanguine will be
enough to reverse the verdict. If this turns
out to be well founded, the respondents will
get a new trial. If the supreme court should
hold the exceptions not to be good, then
sentence will pass in the supreme court.
Under the first count the penalty is not to
exceed three months imprisonment, or fined
not more than Sl00 Under the second
count the penalty is not more than five
years imprisonment or not more than 800
fine. This last section provides penalty
where a man by himself or with others in-
tends to prevent the prosecution of work in
any MILL shop, mine, quarry or railroad.
1t is claimed by respondents counsel there
is no evidence at all to warrant a verdict
under this last section. The jury did not
specify under which count in the informa-
ton they convicted the respondents, and
the question will have to be determined in
the supreme court as to whether a convic-
ton under the second count was warranted
by the evidence.