The daily morning journal and courier., 1904-06-09

several unions, thus discriminating in favor of one class of men and exclud- ing all others. In Matthews vs. The People (2O2 H.. SS9)), the court, dis cussing the constitutionality of the free employment agency act, says (page 40D: An employer whose workmen have left him and gone on strike, par 1 ticularly when they have done so with out any justifiable cause, is entitled to contract with other laborers or work men to fill the places of those who have left him. Any workman seeking work has a right to make a contract with such employer to work for him in the place of any one of the men who have i left him to go out upon a strike. There l fore the prohibition contained in sec ton strikes at right of contract, both on the part of the laborer and of the employer It is now well settled that the privilege of contracting is both liberty and a, property right. Liberty includes the right to make and enforce contracts, because the right to make and enforce contracts is included in the right to acquire property. Labor is property. To deprive the laborer and l lhC ClitktOS Ol lAllfo liSsAlb " NpAANf with one another is to violate section l2 of Article II. of the Constitution of Illinois, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or prop erty without due process of law. It IS equally a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Consti- tuition of the United States. The proyi- sion embodied in section is Giscrim- lination between different classes of cit izens founded on no justifiable ground and an attempt to exercise legislative power in behalf of certain classes and against other classes, whether laborers seeking work or employers. It falls under the condemnation of the Consti- tution.' g
 The agreements in question would, if executed. tend to create a monopoly in favor of the members of the different unions, to the exclusion of workmen not members of such unions, and are, in this respect, unlawful. Contracts tending to create a monopoly are void.
 The legislature Of the state cannot create a monopoly.
 | The purpose of the strikers is in yio- lation of the criminal code, which pro- lvides as follows:
 Section 15S. If any two or more per sons shall combine for the purpose of ldepriving the owner or possessor of lproperty of it's lawful use and manage lment, or of preventing, by threats, sug- q gestions of danger, or by any unlawful means, any person from being enl- lployed by or obtaining employment from any such owner or possessor of property, on such terms as the parties concerned may agree upon, such per son so offending shall be fined not ex- lceeding five hundred dollars or con lined in the county jail not exceeding six months.
 Sec 159. If any person shall, by threat intimidation or unlawful inter- ference, seek to prevent any other per lson from working or from obtaining lwork at any lawful business, on any terms that he may see fit such person so offending shall be fined not exceed ing two hundred dollars.
 Not only was the purpose of the strike unlawful but the means used to achieve the unlawful purpose were ur- lawful The means used were the acts heretofore mentioned, and thereby in ljury to the complainants business. lThe appellants and their associates in- tended to stop the business of the com lplainant so far as they possibly could, land the evidence shows that they did stop it in great part to complainant's s injury. The following is contained in the brief of appellants counsel, which we quote as Illustrative of their view lof the cause How do picketing, pa trolling, persuading or even sugging laffect property rights, except in the most fantastic sense? Injury to busi- ness has no independent existence whatever. because business has no tan gible existence to be injured in the ltrue and unperverted sense.
 In the case of the Union Pacific Rail- way Company vs Rue, cited by counsel flor appellants, the court says: And lthat one's business is his or it's proper lty is likewise elementary and is conce- ded by all"
 A mans business is his property. l"The freedom of business action lies at lthe foundation of all commercial and Industrial enterprises"
 We know or no welt cOnSlQereu case, or, indeed, of any case, holding that a combination of persons to injure the business of another is not unlawful. That the appellants, and others associ- lated with them, acted in concert, in un- lawfully endeavoring to injure, and. in lfact, injuring complainant's business for
 an unlawful purpose, is fully sustained by the evidence. They conspired, breathed together to effect the unlaw- ful purpose, and by overt acts did all they possibly could to that end. It is lnot necessary to prove an express lagreement between the appellants and those associated with them. It may be lproved by circumstantial evidence.
 Each conspirator is responsible for lthe acts and declarations of every oth- CT conspirator in furtherance of the common purpose. The conspiracy orig (inated simultaneously with the calling lof the strike and continued until the filing of the last petition, July IA, 1902 lit was a single conspiracy. And the court, on the hearing of each of the sec lond and third petitions, did not err in hearing prior evidence. The evidence was competent as tracing and showing lthe character of the conspiracy. It is Ian indispensable condition of the en- ljoyment by each citizen of the liberty land riol1ts ey11a nj eed hv the Constitll-