Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-04-16
Vermont's Verdict on Boycotting.

| Vermont's Verdict on BoycOtting.
| The verdict in the case of the f. r.
Patch Manufacturing company against
the machinsts' union of Rutland has been
| hailed by some as the first robukc of the
principle underlying the boycott ever adj
ministered in Vermont; and an attempt
| has been made in some quarters to make
| it appear that one class of our citizens
were being made the victims of some
thing akin to class legislation. 1t may
! have a wholesome effect in all directions
to know that while the Patch case in
volNcd the first legal action of the kind
against a labor organization in this State
the verdict in that suit simply reafiirmed
a principle already established iudicially
| in Vermont in q case in which protection
| from boycott by an organization of man
ufacturcrs was invoked This famous case.
nov forgotten by many. IS that of James
| NJ. Boutwell, ct al vs.. William Mari ct
al; and those who desire to study the
| legal bearings of the matter will find the
case fully set forth in the seventy-frst
volume of the Vermont Reports. We de-
sire at this time to narrate only such
! facts as are necessary to draw a parallel
| between the two cases as regards the
principles involved
The granite manufacturers of Barre
formed an organization called the Granite
| Manufacturers association, which includ-
| cd about % per cent. of the granite man
ufacturers of that place: and this or
Eanization was connected with the Granite
Manufacturers association OF New Eng
| land. embracing a number of local assoc
Citations in different States. Prior to No
vember, 1885, the Barre association adopt
ed bylaws, which prohibited dealings
with members not in good standing and
! imposed fines for violations of its rules.
on November 10 Of that year the Barre
! association endorsed resolution previous
| ly adopted by the New England assoc
citation, which recommended that none
of its members sell any rough stock. part
ly finished or finished granite, directly
or indirectly, to any firm. individual or
corporation, engaged in cutting, quarrying
or polishing granite in any of the New
| England States or in New York city.
and not member of the association.
| Later the Barre association adopted a
resolution of similar import on its own
behalf
The Boutwell, Polishing company. which
was formed in June, 1872 purchased a
mill in Barre. and for time did a flourish
Ing business. The company refused to join
| TIE granite association, however, and
when the boycott resolution was adopted
it bred trouble for the Boutwell, company,
| 50 that in the following December and
January it was without work. except as
it was able to purchase stock outside of
Barre. This inflicted severe loss on the
| boutwell, company and in April, 1894. the
mill was sold to one of the defendant
manufacturers.
The plaintiffs brought suit for damages
and after judgment for the defendants
had been secured in the lower court the
case was carried to the supreme court
whore judgment was reversed and judg-
mcnt was rendered for actual damages
with interest from the date of the judg-
mcnt below.
The testimony in the case showed that
q
understood from the circular sent to them
in accordance with the resolution adopt ed
that ii company declined to join the
association 10 member of the organization
would thereafter do any business with
such company; and it was shown that
one of the chief reasons for the collapse
of the plaintiffs business was the pass
1t also appeared that various members of
the Granite association talked with tho
manager of the Boutwell, company and
others connected with that concern and
it was openly and freely stated that
the latter would find they could do no
business unless they belonged to the Gran
itc association
The decision. delivered by Judge Mum
son, which is "A somewhat lengthy one,
said it Is clear that every one has "A
right to withdraw his own patronage when
he pleases. but it is equally clear that
he has no right to employ threats or in
timidation to divert the patronage of AN
other. The defendants conspired together
for the purpose of bringing about a boy
colt of the plaintiffs; and the jury hav-
ing found, as the evidence tended to show
that the plaintiffs were injured in their
business by the withdrawal of patronage
through the action of defendants organ
ization, which was held to unity of action
by a system of fines and penalties against
dlsobedent members, the plaintiffs arc
entitled to redress.
1t will be seen that the general principle
underlying this case is similar to that in
volved in the Patch case, There were boy
colt and consequent loss of business as a
result Of conspiracy in both cases, but in
one case the offending organization was
of manufacturers and in the other case
of wage-earners. 1t will follow as q
corollary that II the granite association
, had conspired TO prevent any laborine
man from securing employment the prin
J ciple would have been the same as thai
Inc nrovaptip. "a firm from Spcnripp I'm ei