The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-02-05
MAY STOP
WORK.
Continued from Page u

Continued from Page IL
any combination or conspiracy in re-
straint of trade, and which this is, is a
It is also an act of boy
cotting.
1T has been contended in times past
here that in the Act of Congress relat-
ing to the national trades unions that
there is nothing in that act which au-
thorizes combinations to conspire with
the intent to embarrass the operations
of any business with the Interior pur-
pose of enforcing a demand against the
master. Now, we can proceed under
the above mentioned section 8 that APP
plies to the trust here, because this is
conspiracy, pure and simple. The /
exact definition of conspiracy is "a con-
spiracy of two or more persons, by
some concerted action to accompany a {
conspiracy or unlawful purpose, or to ,
accompany the purpose not in itself |
criminal or unlawful, by criminal or /
unlawful means
DEFINITION OF BOYCOTT.
1.-THE exact definition of the word |
I
withdrawal of the custom and good will |
of the immediate parties, and such
other parties as they could influence. |
1t is a conspiracy at common law In
the Federal Courts there is no COM
mon law jurisdiction, but the Federal
Courts get their jurisdiction by the
above statute 1t is against the Grim
inal law for a party of men to band to-
fn through
power of combination of injuring the
business of another, by parading before
his store, by placarding themselves
with the word boycott, by advising
passers-by not to patronize his estab-
lishment To constitute intimidation
it is not necessary that there should
be an overt act of violence or any d.
rect threat by word of mouth: it is
enough if the attitude of the accused
was intimidating.
I'm New York, to procure money
from another with his consent obtained
by fear induced by threat to do or con-
tinue the injury to his property, constr
tutes 'extortion,' and every person
present when such money is paid is la
Bile as a principal. The whole force of
the statute seems to be contained IN
the following paragraph, which to my
+ mind should be a bit of advice to these
intending conspirators and boycotters:
Associations have no more right TO
inf1ict injury upon others than have in
dividuals. All combinations or associ-
ations designed to coerce workmen TO
become parties, or to interfere with, op-
struct vex or annoy them in work or
| any intending work. or to induce them
to become parties: or designed to pre-
vent employment or from making just
discrimination in the wages paid to the
skillful and unskillful and of associa-
ltions designed to interfere with the per-
feet freedom of employers in the prop
er management of their lawful bust
ness. or to dictate terms upon which
their business shall be conducted by
means of threats of injury or loss. or
with their lawful employment OF other
persons designed to abridge any OF their
rights, are, pro tanto, Illegal combina-
tons, and all acts in furtherance OF
such intentions by such means and ac-
Ieompanied by damage are actionable
/ LIABLE TO ARREST.
/ These men are liable to either form
iof action by arrest by injunction, or La
bic to arrest for misdemeanor if they
it is an inherent right in any man to
refuse to work, at the same time, as L
Explained to these men originally when
the first trouble was on a few months
ago, they cannot prevent another man
from working OF course, this is only a
hypothetical reasoning. 1t is only rea-
soning upon what might occur.
could do nothing unless there was an
overt act committed.
Il am hardly prepared to believe that
the iourneymen plumbers intend to go
so far because I explained to them at
the time that their right to refuse to
work was recognized, but they could
not go beyond that and prevent any
iother man from working With regard
to the imitation fee that is a matter for
themselves to determine, but if they
raise it to prohibitive point they can
not complain that these men did not
belong to their union IL is highly in
Edicative of a conspiracy and it is very
J plain that they do not want the men
to belong.
} CRIMINAL OFFENSE.
J ct is a criminal offense to prevent
other people from working when they
, wantfo. Because certain United States
} statutes do not apply in the state OF
California it is no sign that they do not
apply in Hawaii. The United States
laws obtain here directly, whereas the
States are sovereign and enact their
own laws. This boycotting is just as
illegal under the Territorial laws here
as it is under the United States law,
because 1t is a conspiracy at common
law, and these men can be proceeded
against in the Territorial courts as in
the United States courts, because the
Territorial courts have inherent rights.
The United States courts have jurisdic-
ton simply because Congress has made
it so by act of Congress. When men
start out to boycott they are liable to
prosecution either in the Territorial or
United States courts.
Under the instructions which / have
from the United States Attorney Cen
erai General / shall have no hesitancy
in proceeding under the United States
laws if called upon to do so. If the
J<.s,a