The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-06-16

/ called into conference 10y INC '''"'' VI
/ Lords to assist 1t In deciding case pend
ing before il that involved the rght OF
.triline latorcrs 90 prevent other iaoorefs
| fro,n taking their places. All persons IN
This country who take an interest IN Inc
....t social questions now agitaiing the
,,,flic mind that relate 10 the risht OF
mon IN operate jointly and in compina-
do,e looked forward with great interest
TO the decision of this case because "
cr. f.r chat 81 would probably biihS
nnd,r review tho doctrines Of the Mogui
etc.mehin case I'm which tho House Oh
Lords hod I'm 1901. that no combinations
.,,,,,.,., mon were under the ban Of the
common law unless the parties 10 inc
combination were actuated by malice to-
wards some one.
Tho cable yesterday brought the an
nonnccmcnt that eight Of the judges
,,ho had been called upon by the House
| Of Lords 10 assist It in the decision oil
,..o Of this character had rendered
tboir oninions. six holding one way ana
two the other. but the case as now stated
does not seem 10 involve the questions
that we were led to believe 1t inVol'eu'
The case as now cabled to as is this'
Two shipwriehts. named Flood and Tay-
Tor were employed TO repair the BRUSH
shin Sam Weller. lying in the London
docks The Boilermakers' Union object
"a 10 shipwriehts working upon an IRON
shin. and their delegate. Allen. obtained
tho discharge of Flood and Taylor by
threatening a strike of the boilormakers
Flood and TAYLOR sued Allen for wrong
fully and maliciously obtaining their DIS
missal. and they were awarded SO dam
ages. Allen appealed to the House oil
Lords ON the ground that there was no
evidence showing he had acted malicious
| lv or had induced the company having
the repairing of the Sam Weller In hand
TO discharge the men. Six Of the judges
held that Flood and Taylor had right
Of action. while two held that they ala
not Thus the case is reported TO us by
| the cable. but It is obvious that the re-
port is most unsatisfactory one ana
leaves us entirely in the dark as to
what legal principles were declared
As the case comes to us. Allen denied
that be had acted with malice on, in
deed. had had anything 10 DO with the
discharge of the men. 1t may be that
the six Judges found that he was ac-
tuatcd by positive malice, and, if that
wer. the case. then no one could question
his liability. But the question that in
tcrested the public was. would Allen
have been held liable if, in point of fact
ne acted without malice and with good
intentions-that is. the desire and inten-
lion TO benefit himself If that was, In
10 sailed near to the doctrines of the
Mogul steamship case
but it, in fact that was made
the turning point in the case then
fine report as it comes to u makes 1t
ver, clear that the doctrine Of the Mogul
steamship case has been left unimpaired.
For though Allen may not have been ac-
tuatod by malice. he was. nevertheless
"a meddl.r interfering with another mans
,nsiness I'm "a matter that did not concern
him. 1t is vain for him TO say he was
seeking to benefit himself when he So
ncit.a the discharge Of Flood and Tay-
lor. lie may have hoped TO receive some
indirect benefit from their discharge. hut
his primary object was TO secure their dis
charge. Ills primary object therefore
was not his benefit, but their injury. To
hold him liable. therefore. ass meddler
is perfectly consistent with the Mosw
steamship doctrine that the ordinary COM
Lmations of men must be founded In
malice 90 hc vicious. II Is per
I fectlv consistent TO require malice as an
Ingredient that ordinary combinations
may become vicious and vet TO mold
men who volunteer singly or i'm concert
ia NEEDLE with the affairs OF other men
responsible for their oniciousness. In this
! aspect the case comes 10 Dee on AN fours
with the celebrated Baughman Brothers
boycott case that was tried in this city
some ten or twelve years back. In That
| case Typographical Union No. 90 "boy
cottedr Hmehmm Brothers. They pub
| ushed i'm the Labor Herald a black list
containing the names Of an Haughman
Brothers customers. and they warned
am friends of labor not TO deal with
Bauehmm BROTHERS or any of their GUS
toners. The Court of Appeals of this
State held that this was naked tres
pass upon the rights of Baughman Broth
crs. 1T was vain. it said, for the Union
to plead that its object was TO beneht
itself. 10 may have hoped 10 get some
incidental benefit from coercine Baugh-
man Brothers hut its primary object was
the injury Of Baughman Brothers, ana
therefore its acts were violation OF
common rsht and of the law.
We shall await a fuller report Of this
decision with great interest but We see
enough Of 70 To- know that the great and
fundamental principle Of the Mogul steam
shin case has been left in all its intes-
ity. 81.