The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-15
THE COURTS AND BoYcoTTs.

THE COURTS AND BOYCOTTS.
A decision rendered by the United States
Court of Appeals at st. Louis is likely to
attract as much attention as those which
gave rise to the expression government by
Injunction Like those decisions, also, it
is rendered against members of a labor
union, and is likely to be construed as a
piece of legal tyranny The decision is that
an attempt to enforce a boycott by labor
organization is a conspiracy for illegal
purpose, and may therefore be restrained by
the courts, The case grew out of contro-
versy between a stave manufacturing COM
pany in Kansas City and the Coopers'
Union of the same city. The union request
ed the company to cease using certain
machine, and on the company's refusal to
comply, declared boycott against it. The
company applied for an injunction to re-
strain the union from enforcing and contin-
uing the boycott, and the lower court grant,
ed the injunction. The union appealed, and
the higher court, two judges out of three,
affirmed the action of the lower court on the
ground that the members of the union had
no right to enter into a conspiracy to de-
prive the company of it's right to manage
its own business. If that was lawful, said
the court. then a combination might be or
ganized for the purpose of preventing the
use of typesetting machines, harvesters,
threshing machines and thousands of other
useful inventions. Judge Caldwell dissent
ed on the ground that labor had as much
right to organize as capital, and that
nrr1hi of RI
enforce their rights was not in itself a con-
spIracy to do an illegal act.
The Journal is of opinion that the decision
of the court pushes the doctrine of con-
spiracy to the very verge of unreason and
GENES near begging the question at issue.
In legal usage conspiracy is a combination
Oh two or more persons, by some concerted
action, to accomplish some criminal or UNI
lawful purpose, or to accomplish some pur-
pose not in itself criminal or unlawful by
criminal unlawful means. Under the le-
gal definition it takes two or more persons
to form a conspiracy and if there are two
hundred or two thousand in it it is no
worse. In this case, was the combination
criminal or unlawful, was the purpose
which it sought to accomplish criminal and
unlawful? Certainly the combination was
not. Labor unions in themselves are not
only legal, but are legitimate means of &C
ton, and as long as they confine themselves
to legitimate objects and methods they are
commendable No court would dare say
that labor unions are in themselves illegal.
Neither is boycott in itself a criminal or
unlawful act any more than a strike. AS
a remedy for labor troubles, real or mag
mary, the boycott is un-American, unfair
and altogether contemplate, but whether
it is criminal or not depends upon it's con-
duct and the acts to which it gives rise.
1t is not criminal in itself. 1t must be,
then, the court held that the purpose sought
to be accomplished was criminal. The pur-
pose was to bring the stave company to
terms by refusing to trade with it or with
any firm or person that did trade with it.
AS already stated, in the eye of the law 1t
takes two or more persons to form a con-
spiracy. If three persons had combined or
agreed together to boycott the stave COM
pany would court have issued an injunc-
ton against them? If all the members of
the union had used moral suasion or united
in a petition to the StaVe company to dis
continue the use of the machine, would that
have been criminal or unlawful? Certainly
not. No more was the boycott as long as
it proceeded in peaceable and orderly way
The moment it resorted to violence or overt
acts of interference with the company's
property or right it would have become UNI
lawful, but there was no averment that it
bid a trespass or punish a crime but has
it right to forbid three or more persons
from trading or refusing to trade where
they please? If they invade the premises
of the person against whom the boycott is
directed, attempt to destroy his property, or,
by overt act, interrupt his business, then
they come under the law, otherwise not.
The decision of the court goes too far.