The gold leaf. [volume] (Henderson, N.C.) 1881-1911, 1894-07-19

Of England in a recent case that was
argued before them in successive ,rbu-
mails many times by the first minds OF
the country, and that law is settled To
be this:
Two or more men may conspire to-
gether to do another man an injury,
and yet their action may be no breach
of the law or of common right. Thus
4 has hat store on Broad street that
makes him most profitable annual
return. B and & determine that the
business is such good one they will
try to get it for themselves. They,
therefore, open hat store in partner
ship directly by the side of AS, and
sell hats at price that is ruinous 10
\ if he meets the competition.
Now here is a case in which two
men have conspired together to ruin
another, and yet the act is legally
perfectly innocent-and why? Because
their real object is to benefit them
selves. They do not really want to
ruin A. They would be delighted il
he would sell out and oaway. What
they want is to benefit themselves
This is one Of those agreements to in
jure another which the competitions of
of business compel the law to sanction.
But if B and c had not had it
really in good faith in their minds to
secure the hat business for themselves,
but had been animated solely by a
grudge they had against A, and if
they had made their agreement for
the sole purpose OF maliciously destroy
ing A, then their agreement would have
been an unlawful agreement and one
that was criminal.
The test, therefore, in every case is
whether the parties to the agreement
are in good faith seeking to benefit
themselves, or whether they are, in
point OF fact, seeking to do more than
injure another. If it is the first, it is
right if it is the second, it is wrong.
Now, the walking delegates may
determine conscientiously that it would
be good thing for party of work
men if they inflicted wanton injury
upon their employer. Yet, although
they acted in good good faith towards
their constituents, this act would be
an unlawful and wrongful one by
reason of the fact that the primary OBJ
ject would be injury to another, and
not benefit TO themselves If this,
which is the sound distinction, is KEEP,
before the mind, it will clear up the
difficulties of every case and show that
agreements which seem unlawful at
first blush are really lawful, and many
others which seem lawful at first blush
are reAll, unlawful and against com
mon right.
The importance of these remarks,
as applicable to the case that was be-
tore Judge Grosscup, will appear from
reading this further extract from his
charge:
Ii it appears to you, therefore, apply
ing the illustration to the occurrences
that will be brought to your attention,
that any two or more persons, by con-
cert, insisted or demanded under affec-
tive penalties and threats upon men
quitting their employment to the Oh
structlOn OF the mails, or interstate com
merce, you may inquire whether they
did these acts as strangers to these men,
or whether they did them under the guise
of trustees or leaders Of an association
to which these men belonged. And if
the latter appears, you may inquire
whether their acts and conduct in that
respect were in faithful and conscientious
execution OF their supposed authority or
were simply a use of that authority as
a guise to advance personal ambition or
satisfy private malice. There is honest
leadership among these, our laboring
fellow-citizens, and there is, doubtless,
dishonest leadership. You should not
brand any act OF leadership as done dis
honestly or in bad faith, unless it so
clearly appears. But if it does so appear,
if any person is shown to have betrayed
the trust of these toiling men their acts
fall within the definition of crime as
have g wen it to you, it is alike the inter
est, the pleasure, and the duty of every
citizen to bring them to swift and heavy
punishment.
1t is plain that the judge makes the
right or the wrong of the agreement
between the parties turn upon the good
faith of those who bring about the act
complained of. But good or bad
faith may or NAV not have ANYTHING
to do with the case. Those whom he
calls the trustees or leaders may hon
estly believe they are doing the best
thing possible for those whom they
represent, yet if their act is one Of
wanton injury to the employer it is an
unlawful act. The goodness or bad
ness of the act turns on the intention
which is at the bottom of it, and not
upon the honesty or sincerity Of the
actors.