The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1906-01-28
Labor Also Has
Its Right to Combine.

The Supreme Court Of North Caro-
lima, in the case Of the State VS.. A
Van Pelt ct al, recently rendered q
decision that will be of interest to the
public in general and to union labor
in particular.
A manufacturing concern in that
state. employing non-union men, insti-
tuted proceedings for criminal conspir-
acy against Van Pelt and several other
members of a union because the union
had posted the mill as unfair to union
labor and refused to work any of the
products Of the concern. The case
was carried Up TO the supreme court
and Judge Conner in rendering the de-
I cisiOn of the court said:
The proposition is that the defendants
cOnspired for the purpose of injuring
I the prosecutor in his trade and bust
ness, and that il is unlawful for them
TO DO 50. 1t can not be that every con-
spiracy 10 injure one in his trade ana
business, without reference to the
means 70 be employed, is criminal. A
carpenter or joiner has, by his appren-
uceship, study and experience, ac-
quiTed skill and knowledge in his
trade. His capital consists in his
physical strength and his intellect
trained and directed by his skill and
experience. II is the use OF this
which, in a sale he offers for sale. In
what respect, for the purpose of Sc
curing the best prices for his labor on
the best terms. do his rights differ
from the man who has cotton for sale,
the prO0uct of his capital, land and
labor. or the man who has money to
invest in the mercantile or manufac-
turing enterprises? Each OF them en-
tiers into the field of competition.
Each finds that combination with
others engaged in the same field OF
labor or investment will secure better
results and faireT treatment FROM
those with whom he deals. There is no
evil or harm in combination or organ
iZation per sc. Every cO-partnershiD.
corporation. joint stock company, and
other association of labor and capital
is a recognition of this truth. We
find no better illustration of the cor
rect principle upon which this right
depends and the benefits which may
come from its application under prop
er limitations than that given by|
Chief Justice Shaw in Com. VS.. Hunt: I.
Suppose a baker in a small village
had the exclusive custom of his /
reighbOrhoOd. and was making large i
profits OF the sale of his bread. Sup 4
posing a number Of those neighbors, I
believing the price Of bread too high. (
~ h
prices. or. if he did not, that they
would introduce another baker; and
on his refusal such other baker should. 4
under their encouragement. set up
rival establishment, and sell his bread
az lower prices; the effect would be
TO diminish the profit of the former
baker, and TO some extent impOverish
him. And il might be sam and proved
that the purpose of the associates was
10 diminish his profits, and thus i'm
Dcverish him. though the ultimate and
audable object OF the combination
was to reduce the cost Of bread to
themselves and their neighbors.
We think. therefore. that associations
nav be entered into. the object OF
which is TO adopt measures that may ;
ave the tendency to impoveFish an. {
is, 10 diminish his gains
md profits-snd yet. so far from be- ]
ng criminal or unlawful, the object {
nay be highly meritOTiOus and public ]
pirited. The legality of such an as
win therefore depend upon s
he means 10 be used for its accom- [
,lishment"
This decision is one of the most 5
ensible expressions of judicial opin- !
on that We have ever read. 1t means. /
q effect, that labor has the same '
lght TO combine for mutual protection
nd mutual profit that capital has.
II is a common charge that the {
lembers of labor unions are eonspir- T
tors against the public welfare and l
be case above mentioned is not the y
rst that has been Instituted on that