The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-12-28
THE taft Vale CASE.
Passages From tho Charge 10 the Jury
mat Awarded Damages Against Trade
Union Frank enstein's Responsibility.

His Lordship, in summing up, said he pro-
posed to leave three questions to the jury.
Did the three defendants con spire together
to modest and in jurc the plaintiffs by unlawful
meansY Did they or any and which of them
unlawfully persuade the men whose notice.
had not expired to break their contracts.
Did they or any. and which ofthem authorize
and assist in carrying out the strike by un-
lawful means? He would put his own view
OF the right answers to the questions befor.
the jury, but reminded them that they must
hot take it as authoritative. but If they dis
agreed with II. must discard 1t Ia favor of
their own.
strike was not in itself Illegal nor was con
certed action TO produce such strike. Eut
doctrines had been put forward which an
pearcd to him pcrilous, and he felt 1t right
to have the courage OF his opinions and to
protest against the incess1nt shuf'lng and
shifting OF respon sibiity which had formed
80 great feature OF the defence He thought
that tho evidence was absolutely ovcrwhelm-
ing that there was a conspiracy to modest and
injure the plaintiffs by unlawful means
His Lordship cited from the judgment Of
AC. at p. $50: He" the plaintiil "nad tho
ordinary rights of British subject He was
AZ liberty 10 earn his own living In hisown way
provided he did not violate some stccinl law
prchibitng him from so dong. and provided
he did not infringe the rights of other people
other persons who were willing to deal with
him. This liberty Is right recognized by
law; its eorrslauye is the general duty OF
every one not to prevent the free exercise of
this liberty, except 80 far as his own liberty
of action may Justify him in so doing But a
is nugatory unlos, they are at liberty 10 deal
with him If they choose 10 do so Any inter-
feren CO, with their liberty to deal with him
Affects him. IL such Interference is Justiaa-
BILE in point OF law he has no redress
1t was childish to say that the LEADERS, were
not re- pcnsiblc FOR the t nets 81 the incn under
particular act. Frapken stein created u mon
ster which went about doing damage II
franken stein had been sued for that damage
in an In glish court OF law, could he ha We
RESPONSIBLE, no doubt Bell and Holmes
damage donen more THIN Frankenste did
but that did not afford an escape from legal
m"n word Of terror and as Word w Of ,srrsr
IL was used Ia these circulars "lntimida ton :"
had been. confined by judicial decision TO
of personal violence, Did not this referer &c
70 being kn9wn as blackles amount TO a
a. triumphs Whit evidence was there,
except for the cases in which Holmes was sad
commttee-room itself, OF any specific cou
dcnnatton OF these acts or any refusal TO go
on ,payng STRIDE or picket nay 20 their authors,
without leaving the box, returned their an
swers to the question left them The cues
tons and answers were as follows,
Odd the three defer limits con spire to-
sethcr to modest and njurc the plaintiffs by
unla wflll mcHns' A.-Nes
o Did they or any and which NJ them I'm.
lawfully persuade the men whose notices had
not expired 20 break their contractsf A.
Yes all of them
Q. Did they or any and which Of them an.
thorizs and assist IN carrying opt the strike
by unlawful means1 A-Yes; all Of (hSN
The assessment OF dsmaees M - -
con sent. to the Judge '"