The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1904-12-18

ing sellers, thought TOBACCO unIedsoh-
| ably low. They believed that III oTder
to protect themselves from what they
regarded unfair treatment, they must
organize. That their purpose was to
iniure the manufacturer in the one
instance and the purchaser IN the
other, in their trade and business,
was not denied, but openly aVoWed-
their defense being that they were
seeking fair treatment at the hands of
both. We must keep in mind the
fact that we are discussing the queS-
tion as if is affected by the common
law. The proposition is that the de-
| PENDANTS conspired for the purpose o
iniuring the prosecutor in his trade
and business, and that it is unlawful
for them to do so. 1t can not be that
every conspiracy to- injure one in his
trade and business, without reference
TO the means to be employed is crimi-
inaI A carpenter, or joiner, has by
mis- apprenticeship, study and expert
ence acquired skill and knowledge in
his trade. His capital consists in his
| physical strength, and his intellect
| trained and directed by his skill and
| experience. 1t is the use of this which
| in a sense he offers for sale. In what
| respect, for the purpose of securing
the best prices for his labor on the
best terms. do his rights differ from
| the man who has cotton for SALE the
product of his capital-land and Ia
bor-or the man who has money to
invest in merchantile or manufacture
ing enterprise. Each of them enters
into the field of competition. Each
| finds that organization with others
Ienpaged in the same field of labor or
investment will secure better results
and fairer treatment from those with
whom he deals. There is no evil or
harm in organization per Sc. Every
copartnership, joint, stock company.
| corporation and other association o!
labor or capital is a recognition of
| this truth. 81 Citing Com. VS.. Hunt,
supra. Judge Holmes, in his dissent
| ing opinion in Vegelahn VS.. Center,
I167 Mass. 80 discusses the question
with much force and clearance.
| Speaking of the right of laborers or
| mechanics to combine to promote
| their interests he says: IF it be true
| that working men may combine with
a view to getting the greatest posi-
| BILE return, it must be true that when
| combined they have the same liberty
| that combined capital has to support
| their interest by argument, persuasion
| and the bestoyal or refusal of those
| advantages which they otherwise law
! fully control. The fact that the
| immediate object of the act by which
| the benefit to themselves is to be
gained is to injure their antagonist
does not necessarily make it unlawful
any more than when great house
lowers the price of certain goods for
the purpose and with the effect of
driving a smaller antagonist from the
| business. Indeed, the question seems
to me to have been decided as long
| ago as 1912 by the good sense of Chief
| Tstjce Shaw in Com VS. Hunt. He
further says There is a notion
which latterly has been insisted on
good deal, that a combination of per-
sons TO do what any one of them
might lawfully do by himself Will
make the otherwise lawful conduct
unlawful. IT would be rash to say
that some, as yet, unformulated truth
may not be hidden under this propo-
stion. But in the general form in
which it has been presented and ac-
cepted by many courts, l think It
plainly untrue, both on authority and
on principle" See also his dissent
| ing opinion in Plant VS.. Woods. 176
| Mass. 504.
Judge Caldwell in Ames VS.. I. Pac.
Ry. Co. 81 Fed. ia. says: Organ
| lied labor is organized capital. 1t is
capital consisting of brains and mus
Gle If it is lawful for the stock
| holders and officers of a corporation
to associate and confer together for
the purpose of reducing the wages OF
| it's employees, or for devising other
means for making their investment
more profitable, it is equally lawful
| for organized labor to associate. con-
suit and confer with view to main
tain or increase wages. Thomas VS..
Gin. N. o. & T. p. Ry. Co. 81 Fed.
500; People VS.. Radt., Il n. Y. Supp
I846 1t is said: zone may refuse TO
deal with a firm because Of behet
| that it does not give honest cOmpen-
sation for labor, and may ask his
| friends or the public to DO the same
| thing, and the conduct may do injury
| to the public. without becoming lie
gal" Ib. "An" agreement among the
members of an association OF plumb
ers not to deal with wholesale deal
efS who sell to any who are not mem
bers of the association. and the send
| ing notices to that end do not con-
stitute an unlawful conspiracy, since
the object of the combination and
the means adopted for its accom-
olishment are lawful" Macauley VS..
Tierney, 81 L. r. \. ass Gig r. 255)-
In Bohn Manufacturing Co. VS.. Hollis.
81 Mimi. 223. it appeared that the
plaintiff was manufacturer and
dealer, Wholesale and retail in lum-
| Der and other building material. The
| defendant was a voluntary association
| OF retail lumber dealers. 1t had GER
tain rules for it's own government and
| that of its members. Inc plalllll
sold two bills of lumber to contrac-
tors, or consumers in places where
members OF the association were e1t-
gagged in the retail business. The
| secretary of the association made a
demand upon the plaintiff for ten per
cent on the sales so ma lc. iile oe-
mand not being cOmniie1 with. the
secretary notified, or as the complaint
averred, threatened that unless plain
| tiff Immediately settled the matter he
would send to all members of the as
ISOLATION the lists or notices provided
| by the bylaws. notifying them that
plaintiff refused to comply with the
rules and was no longer in sympathy
with it. The court referring TO the
| afffdavits. etc. said: Both the afti-
davits and brief i'm behalf Of the plain
tiff INDUCES in a good deal of strong
and even exaggerated assertion and
in many words and expressions OF
very indefinite and Elusive meaning.
such as wreck. "coerce," con
spiracy," monopoly" drive out of
business and the like. This looks
| very iolnnitabie, but in Paw ~ VIII ~
| in .4athematics = siE,Dii;'cS thin"3
| ,tlv N ch 20 reduce the u 70 their
lowest terms Now. when re-
duced to it's ultimate analysis. all that
| the retail dealers in this case have
Il