The sun., 1905-07-31
The Abuses Of Trade Unions.

ideas whatsoever.
The Abuses Of Trade Unions.
The opinion Of the Supreme Court Of
the State Of Massachusetts In the case
of BERRY ps. DONOVAN, recently referred
to in passing, has now been reported
in full, and is interesting particularly for
the remarkable similarity Of point Of
view with the Now York and Illinois
courts in dealing with the abuses Of
trade unions. In many places the
language OF Chief Justice kNowLToN
in the Massachusetts case is almost
identical with the expressions in the
other judicial opinions. The case is un-
usual, though not unique, in the nature
of the legal action. which was one in tort,
brought not by the company but by an
employee, to recover damages sustained
by the defendants malicious interfer-
ence with the plaintiffs right Of con-
tract. A common law jury brought in
verdict in the plaintiffs favor for 81 500,
which was affirmed on appeal
The plaintiff was shoemaker, en-
ployed by the firm Of HAzEN B. Good
RICH 4 Co. at Haverhill, Mass, under a
contract terminable at will. He had
been working there for four years when
the defendant, a representative OF the
Boot and Shoe Workers Union, induced
GOODRICH 4 Co. to discharge him. The
discharge was occasioned by an agree
ment entered into by the union and the
shoe concern, whereby the employer
agreed to hire only members of the
union in good standing, AMI not to re-
tain any. shoe worker after receiving
notice from the union that such worker
was Objectionable to the union, either
on account of being in arrears for dues,
or disobedience Of union rules or laws, or
from any other cause.
At the trial the defendant attempted
in vain to get before the jury various
propositions The Judge refused to
charge that the contract was legal or
that the defendant was only liable II he
used threats, or intimidation, or slander
or some other unlawful means Of coercion
to cause the employees discharge.
Chief Judge KNowLToN now says that
the trial Judge was right. He continues:
The right to dispose of ones labor - he will.
and to have the benent Of ones lawful contracts,
is incident TO the freedom OF the individual which
lies a. the foundation of the government in all
countries that maintain the principle OF civil liberty
Such q right can lawfully be interfered with only
by one who Is acting in the exercise Of an equal
eo ANAA vte. Nk~
other. An intentional interference with such q
right without lawful Justification Is malicious In
law. even II It is from good motives and without
express malice"
Chief Judge KNowLToN then proceeds
to demolish the attempted justification
of the defendant that the contract was
part OF legitimate competition:
THE principle appealed 70 would justify mem.
ber OF the union. who was seeking employment for
himself. In making an offer to serve on such terms
as would result. and as he knew would result In the
dkcharge OF the plaintiff by his employers 10 mako
a place for the newcomer. Such an offer for such
a purpose would be Objectionable. 1t would be
merely the exercise Of personal hight. equal In
Importance TO the plaintiffs night. But an inter-
ference by q combination Of persons to obtain the
discharge of q workman because he refuses TO
comply with their wishes for their advantage.
In some matter In which he has right 10 act In
dependently, y not competition"
Nor can the procedure be justified as
another kind OF 80 called competition,
between employers and the employed, in
the attempt Of each class to obtain as
large a share as possible Of the income
from their combined efforts in the in
dustrial field. Judge KNowLToN holds
that such results are too remote to war
rant this harmful interference. Ex-
panding on this proposition, he declares:
III such an object were treated a. legitimate,
and allowed to be pursued to Its complete accom-
plishrnent. every employee would be forced into
membership In . union. and tho unions. by com
bina,ion Of those In different trades and occupa-
tlons. would have complete and absolute control
Of all the industries In the country. Employers
would be forced to yield 70 all their demands or
give up business. The attainment Of such an OBJ.
ject In the struggle with employers would not be
competition but monopoly. monopoly CON
trolling anything which the world must have Is
fatal 10 prosperity and progress. In matters Of
this kind the law does not tolerate monopolies
The attempt TO force all laborers 70 combine In
unions Is against the policy Of the law. because II
aims at monopoly. II therefore does not Justify
causing the discharge by the employer Of an In
dividual laborcr working under a contract"
The Court concludes this line OF rea-