The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18
LABOR UNIONS
ARE SUSTAINED
Supreme Court Holds
That a Conspiracy to
Injure is Not Indict-
able Per Sc.
JUDGE CONNOR'S OPIN-
ION.
lie Makes it Clear That it is Only
When the Means Used to Accom-
pIish the End Are Unlawful
That it Becomes

The Supreme Court last week rend-
cred the most important decision in its
history upon question affecting labor
unions. 1t is a matter of the highest
importance and the case has been
watched with deep interest. particular
w by the members of the Labor
Union in an around Salisbury. But it
directly affects the whole State and
every interest where there are labor
unions.
The Labor Unions in Salisbury made
a demand on a lumber merchant In
Salisbury, that he refrain from en-
ploying other than Union labor UNI
der pain of being considered out OF
sympathy with organized labor" He
refused to comply and members of the
Labor Union published that he had
been placed on 1.-The unfair list" Van
Pelt and others in the Labor Union
who put the lumber merchant on the
unfair list were indicted for conspir-
acy to break up and destroy the bust
ness of the lumber merchant on whom
they had made demand that he re-
frain from employing other than union
labor.
The Supreme Court held that a con-
spiracy to injure ones business is not
per Sc indictable. 1t is only when the
means used to accomplish the end are
unlawful that it becomes so.
The importance of the case makes it
proper that all business men. employ
ers of labor, all members of labor
unions, and all others should under
stand the principles which underlie
the decision of the court. The opin-
ion was written by Justice Common and
is an able and learned treatment of
the delicate question that was before
the court. Because of its permanent
character and far-reaching import
ance, we print below copious extracts
from the opinion by Justice Conner:
Justice Connor's Opinion.
Extracts from opinion by Conner, j..
in State V. Van Pelt. No. 345.
I'VE do not find it necessary to
consider the sufficiency of the first
count in the bill; by fling the bill of
particulars the State, for the pur-
pose of this appeal. makes sufficiently
definite the charge ana means by
which the alleged conspiracy was TO De
put into execution. The demurrer ore
tenus is based upon the indictment and
the bill of particulars. We however
fully approve the language of Shaw,
G. j., in Com. V. Hunt, 40 Mass, Ill.
Citing State VS.. Trammell, "a
n. c., 379; L. s. V. Cruikshank, 80 L.
s., 542; Pettibone VS.. L. S., 1875 State
VS. Younger IL n. c.. 1851.
while it is the right of the de-
PENDANT to demand, and the duty of
the court to require a bill of particu-
lars, this is for the benefit of the de-
PENDANT and does not in any degree
deprive him of the right to have the
bill of indictment quashed if INSULT
cient. Mr.. Bishop we'll says: THE
bill of particulars not being made by
the grand jury Oh oath cannot supply
any defect in the indictment" Grim.
Prac. Sec. CAS-. It would seem tina,
as the defendant ~ entitled TO demand
the bill of particulars, ana as the
State on the u.ul. is restricted to
proofs of the facts set out, it woulo
be more in accordance with reason,
good criminal pleading and the safety
of the citizen to require the State 10
set out in the indictment the charg.
in full, together with the means by
which the alleged conspiracy is to be
effectuated. 1t is SO held by many
courts and required by statutes. No
offense is 50 easily charged and so
difficult TO be met unless the defend
ants are fully informed of the facts
upon which the State will rely to Sus-
tain the Indictment. While technical
objections to indictments are not to be
sustained substantive and substantial
facts should be alleged. General and
underlined charges of crime. especially
those involving mental conditions and
attitudes, should not be ENCOURAGE.
They are not in harmony with the
genius of a free people, living under
written Constitution. We can see
no good reason why an exception TO
the general rules of criminal pleading
should be made in favor of this crime;
certainly there is nothing in the his
tory of the criminal law of England
or this country 10 commend it to the
favor of courts having regard for lib
erty regulated by law. Such an indict-
nent has been appropriately termed
"a drag net of vague charges to
catch innocent persons. who in times
of excitement may be convicted by the
suspicious and prejudices of juries. An
examination of the cases cited in
Wright on Criminal Conspiracy 1S6
discovers a state of painful uncertainty
in the rulings of courts, explained
frequently by the political or other
bias Of temper or opinions of the
Judge. Certainty should never be sac
rificed TO the plea for simplicity.
Viewed properly there is no conflict
between them. We cannot but think
that an omission of the needless repi-
tition of epithets and denunciatory
terms Of the defendant and the inser-
ton. in place thereof in plain Ian
Euage, of the facts relied upon would
be conducive To that certainty and
simplicity which are the real safe
guards To society and the citizen. Cen
eral and indefinite descriptions of al
legged crimes like general warrants