The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-18

A'lt.- bE an INDIVIDUAL. would NOT be pun
ishahie become criminal when done by q
combination. asserting that such a prin-
Clpir IS contrary To the fundamental right
OF men to act in association. and Of the
inevitable trend Of advancing civilization
70 render collective action more necessary.
THE highest English judicial authorities
nave IN several recent cases declared that
the intent Of a combination to injure does
not render civilly unlawful acts which
would not be Civilly unlawful IL done by
an individual; and there seems little
doubt that the tendency in Great Britain
Is 10 consider the element OF combination
with unlawful intent less significant also
as regards criminal law than was form
erly the case
Court decisions do not always point
out the distinction between civil liability
ana criminal liability. or between the els-
mentS contributing to each. ID is stated
by some authorities that malicious in
tent is not properly 10 be taken into ac-
count IN determining whether an aCl ere
ates cause of action for civil damages.
though it may be properly considered in
criminal Jaw This position. as just sug-
EcSted. Is now the ruling one in Great
Britain, where the famous cases OF No
SHL steamship Company vs. McGreEor
and Allen Us Flood established DO firmly
as regards the acts Of labor combinations
and combinations Of business men as
well In the United States. on the other
hand. the courts in many cases seem
presence Of malice makes an act CiyilIy
unlawful which would not otherwise be
ties however, dissent directly from This
position.
a similar conflict Of opinion exists as
regards the effect Of the presence of com
blnatiOn upon civil liability. Some aut h0r-
tiles maintain that acts which would not
give cause Of action IL done by iudi-
Elcuals give no cause OF action II done
by combination. but the American
courts in several important cases have
taken the opposite position
Referring 20 the legality Of strikes, the
report says:
1T is "a weII-known fact that, IN earlier
times and up 10 the end Of the first quar-
ter or the present century. mere concert
cd action Of workiuPmeu In refusing TO
continue IN employment was held by The
British courts 20 bc criminal conspiracy.
This cOmmon-law doctrine was affirmed
IN one OF two early cases in the United
states. bui II IS now definitely abandoned
~ both countries Indeed. in Gr.a- Bril-
am statute passed in 1879 expressly af-
hIInS the legality of strikes and OF vari-
Gus other acts OF labor combinations.
" md occasional expressions Of Opiu-
ION by American Judges somewhat in the
nature a. Cblter Gicta. 10 the effect that
ID actual practice strikes are always at
tended by unlawful acts. or even that
they are ia their very essence unlawful.
but ia recent years no decisions O" courts
90 ultimate resort have formally taken
il.lS extreme ground. lu the Northern
Pacific Railway case in 1894 Judge Ion
kius. of the Federal Circuit Court issued
an injunction prohibiting the employees of
ine railroad from quitting work. with or
without notice, on tho ground that there
by great injury would be- done 70 the rail-
road and also 10 the general public seTv-
90 by IL. This decision was, however.
overruled by the Circuit Court Of APP
peals. and IL was declared an invasion OF
natural liberty 20 compel any man to re-
main In the personal service Of another
although the court iutimated that lsey{efg-
ton might perhaps wisely be enacted TO
restrict strikes on great railway systems
IL has also be. n held that the quitting
OF employment under certain cIrcum-
stances, without proper notice. is uulaW-
ful. particularly where II results I'm ac-
tual danger TO life and property. as In
case "t railway employees who should
leave their trains before the end of the
Journey indeed. In not few States
statutes have been passed prohibiting
railway employees. individually or coIIec-
lively, from SO quitting work ass 10 en-
crty- This however. IS evidently. an en-
tirely different principle from that Of the
illsgallty % strikes in themselves.
different considerations are involved In
strikes which have for their motive MOI
INC nrect Improvement Of the condition
Ct the strikers, but some other object
~uch as that Of compelling employers 20
discharge lhlrd persons or of aiding other
W'Tkmen by sympathetic strike As is
more fully shown below. strikes with such
indirect motives are frequently held un-
strlk". pure and simple. has apparently
never been decided by IKE higher courts
and il is perhaps doubtful whether such
? strike would be held unlawful. unless Il
involved other clements, such as that cr
the boycott"
The legal position Of labor organizations
is treated as follows The uosition Of
labor organizations under statute law and
court decisions Is somewhat uncertain
ana anomalous one. Their powers and re-
SppHSIbIltes are not clearly defined and
IN general are not probably very great.
Numerous American States have passed
laws l'Es IziuE combinations Of working
mon and strikes. $50 that trad. unions In
the absence Of statutes regarding .rc.r-
PpT.il'u. become Legitimate as voIuutarv
HSSo"l1u tons Tn many States tho. NAV
doubtless Incorporate under tho u0uet0ciy
or Premiership corporation laws In New
YORK. isuHSyl Nauit and "a haIF 5ozeu.
other states special laws authorizing th.
Incorporation OF trade unions have boon
enacted. and similar law has b.,u on
acted Uy Congress. but most Of these .--a
far from Leirg specific regarding. Tho now
crs and obligations Of such ircoruDr4f.a
unions. i'm most States very few labor
unions have incorporated. although tH.
number IN New York is quite large