The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-13
LATE LEGAL DECISIONS.


unions before the Supreme judicial Court
OF Massachusetts,, the question was how
far union could go in the matter OF
boycotts and strikes to strengthen its or
ganization and increase its membership.
The difference between the two unions
was that one affiliated with national or
ganization having its headquarters in To-
diana, and the other afhliated with a sim
liar organization having its headquarters
In Maryland. The first union declared
AL painters not affiliated with the Bal
timore headquarters to be non union
| men,, and voted TO notify bosses Of
| that declaration: the object being to have
| all the members of the craft subjected to
the rules and discipline of their partic-
ular union. In order that they might have
better control over the whole business.
and to that end they combined to get the
| members of the other union to Join their
association, peaceably. il possible. but by
threat and Intimidation IL necessary
| Inc conclusion that the court reached
| on the facts was that the first union had
conspired to compel the members of the
| plaintiff union to join the defendant I'M
ION. and. to carry out their purpose, re-
solved upon such coercion and intimida-
| tfon as naturally may be caused by
4
boycotts. to induce the employers either
| to get the members of the second union
to ask reinstatement in the first union. or
| that, failing, to discharge them. And the
| court held that these acts were calculated
| to cause damage to the members of the
second union. and did actually cause such
damage; and that they were actually
done for that purpose. and were without
! Justification, and therefore malicious and
/ in ba fpo
| said:
| 1t Is true they committed no acts of
| personal violence, or of physical injury to
property. although they threatened to do
something which might reasonably be ex-
pected to lead to such results In their
| threat, however. there was plainly that
which was coerciye in its effect upon the
\ Will. 1t Is not necessary that the liberty
OF the body should be restrained. Restraint
OF the mind, provided it would be such as
would be likely to force a man against his
| VIII to grant the thing demanded and
actually has that effect, is sufficient .
| The defendants might make such lawful
| rules as they please for the regulation Of
| their own conduct. but they had no right
| to force other persons TO join them. The
| necessity that the plaintiffs should join
| this association is not so great, nor is its
| relation to the rights of the defendants as
| compared with the rights of the plaintiffs
| to be free from molestation, such as to
bring the acts Of the defendant under the
shelter OF the principles of trade COMPETE
ton tPlant VS.. Wood. 81 N E., 1O11)
In an action Of punishment against
| bank the answer OF the bank stated that it
| did not have any effects belonging to the
defendant or under its control, unless they
were in a box in the banks safety deposit
vault. which the bank rem ed to defendant,
| and that before the box could be opened
the bank had to turn in the lock what is
known as masters Key" after which
the key furnished the defendant would I'M
lock the compartment: and to this COM
partment the bank had no key whatever.
, On this answer 1t was eontended that the
bank did not have control of the effects OF
the defendant in the sense of the statute.
But the Supreme Court (Trowbridge VS.,
Spinning, 81 Pac. Rep. 1851 held that as
the bank could at any time on the request
OF the defendant, put it within the power
OF the defendant to remove the contents Of
the box. and the defendant could not re-
move the contents without the consent and
active cooperation Of the bank, the con-
troll Of the box, as against the garnishee,
was in the bank
The fact that person. in committing
an offence involving criminal intent.
was acting as agent for a corporation is
no defence to his prosecution therefor as
an individual, holds Judge McAdam, of
the New York Supreme Court. in the case
OF People VS.. Dunlap f66 n. Y Supp, 1911
where the act was also unlawful il done
by the corporation. while corporation
may. for certain purposes" said the
court, commit crime. it cannot, as a
rule. commit one involving the elem-nt
OF criminal intent. In such matters the
fff lny Ic yx~tx< To-,
into execution are liable to indictment as
individuals. and corporate character fur
nishes no protection to such persons"
A person born of n white father and an
Indian mother, and who has been reocg-
nized as a member OF the tribe of Indians
to which his mother belongs, is held BY
Judge Knowles of the United States CIR
cult Court of Montana. in the case Of
United States VS.. Higgins f103 Fed Rep,
3iSD, TO be an Indian. and not subject to
taxation under the laws of the State in
which he resides. The question arose in
suit brought by the United States as the
ward of the Indian, to restrain the tax
collector from collecting tax frcm him.
The father of the Indian was Canadian
Frenchman. and his mother was q Piegan
Indian. The mother was adopted into the
Flathead tribe, and he and her other
children were recognized as members OF
that tribe.
1t is claimed that notwithstanding these
facts, the father of the Indian being a
white man. the son would follow the con-
dition Of his father, and must be treated
rs a white man. The court said in part:
1T is undoubtedly true that a white
man, although adopted into an Indian
tribe. and treated by them in all respects
as and like an Indian, cannot escape his
responsibilities as white man, and must
be subject to the laws and the taxing
power of government of white men,
embracing the section of country where
he lives. But is IT true that under our
laws a child will always be classed as of
the same color and race as his or her
father? 1t is we'll known and settled that
If a mother Is a slave her children follow
her condition. government under which
persons of the half blood may reside can
determine the status of such half-bloods-
as to whether they shall be classed as
white people or as Indians. Con-
sidering the history, of the Indian tribes
throughout the United States, / am salts
fed it will be found that the half bloods
of all tribes were the children of what
was recognized as Indian marriages be-
tween white men and Indian women But
few instances can be found in which white
women intermarried with Indian men.
Considering. then, the treaties and stat
utes (of the United States), I think 1t is
evident that the executive and political
departments of the Government have rec
ognized persons having at least one-half
Indian blood in their veins. whose fathers
were white men. which half-bloods lived
and resided with the tribes to which their
mothers belonsea, as Indians 1T
is we'll known to those who have lived