The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-11-27
JOHN MITCHELL's ERRONEOUS
VIEW.

At club dinner in New York. Tuesday
night. John Mitchell, president of the
United Mine Workers, was asked If he con-
sidered the boycott fair. and he answered.
81 believe that thousand men have a
right to do what one man has a right to
do" This was equivalent TO saying that il
one man has a right to withdraw his pat
urge his friends to do SO, thousand men
have the same right to combine and act in
concert to the same end.
The Journal has had occasion more than
once to commend Mr.. Mitchell's good sense,
but in this case he is wrong. Not being a
lawyer. it is not surprising that he should
take an erroneous view of question in
volving legal rights, but he is not the first
labor leader to imagine that organized Ia
Dor has rights distinct from and superior to
those of other people. His mistake In this
case is in thinking that members Of trade
union in their organized capacity have a
right to do what the law forbids any body
of men from doing. namely. combining and
acting together to break down or injure
any persons business. The law regards
such combination as a criminal conspir-
acy. The legal definition Of a conspiracy is
"a combination of two or more persons. by
concerted action, to accomplish a criminal
or unlawful purpose. or some purpose not
itself criminal or unlawful. by criminal or
unlawful means The destruction or Grip
ping of mans lawful business is an un-
lawful purpose. and a combination to that
end is a conspiracy.
Mr.. Mitchelrs opinion that a thousand
men have right to do what one man may
do sounds plausible enough. but it will not
stand the test Of law. An act entirely law
full, If done by single individual. may be
unlawful by reason of being done in pur-
suance OF a combination of individuals to
do the same act. Following are some of
the expressions of the courts on this point:
A man may encounter the acts of a single
person, yet not be fairly matched against
several.
The combination is material in giving the
act different character from a similar act
of individual by reason of its greater,
more dangerous and oppressive effect.
Any one man or any of several men act
ing independently. is powerless; but when
ergies to the accomplishment of bad pur-
pose, the combination is formidable. Its
power for evil increases as its numbers In
crease.
In these expressions the courts recognize
the difference between individual and COM
bined action, and they apply the principle
of conspiracy.
A boycott is defined as "a conspiracy
formed and intended, directly or indirectly,
to prevent the carrying of any lawful
business, or to injure the business of any
one by wrongfully preventing those who
would be customers from buying anything
from the representatives of said business
| by threats, intimidation or other forcible
| means" The fact that boycott may be
| intended to gain some advantage for or
ganized labor does not change it's character
in the eye OF the law. Boycotts. though
unaccompanied by violence or intimidation
| have been pronounced unlawful in every
| State of the Union where the question has
arisen, and intimidation" in the Legal
sense may exist without violence or force
1t only takes two persons to constitute q
conspiracy, and when that number or more
combine to destroy, break up or interrupt
the business of any person, prevent the
sale of such persons goods or prejudice the
public against the individual, they are
guilty Of criminal conspiracy and the
courts will SO hold without regard to the
ethics Of labor unions. The courts cannot
compel members OF labor unions to trade
with a particular person, but they will en-
join them from trying to enforce boycott
against the person and will punish them Il
they persist in doing so. II Mr.. Mitchell
should attempt to put his views in practic,
| through labor unions he would soon FIND
himself in opposition to the law.