The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-16
Can Secure Better Terms.


In many of the States of the Union
there are statutes which provide for the
of trades unions and other
labor organizations and In al Of them
one OF the permissible objects of incor-
poration is declared to be the secure
nent of Better terms of employment:
while: at common law, as interpreted by
the English decisions and a few of the
country, labor combinations formed for
the purpose Of controlling the rate of
wages We're regarded as q criminal con-i
courts of this country We're soon departed
from by other cases, notably in Massa-
chuseetts, New. York and Tennsylvania.'
pane 81 Ri legal e%uaiit With eapt pHn
combinations, by holding that it was not
a. criminal conspiracy for workmen to
combine t,'l1 for the PURPOSE OF enhancing
any other way, their relations with ems,
n !.
1t is lawful for workmen to combine
and such n combination is easily distin-
guishabc from one in which the purpose
terms of their own hiring; as, for cx-
ample, the prevention Of the employment
Of non-union men Master stcyedores
settled that while 'strikers'' have the the
right TO argue Or discuss with new em-
question whether they should work. for
the employer and the right to persuade
new employees not to do so II they can,
E1 3, use f95f s,fs y1eenss ter
Union Pacific Rairold company air,os vs..
Keuif, and other :.''t herities supra.
PiiefketinE bae e at the /, methods
Ing. their purposes. and here us in the
have a right to pursue that method. So
full. Nd. ,.#
A combinationSlnwful% within itself may
become q conspiracy when the purpose In.
view Is to ruin or damage the business OF
another. because Of Of his q: !, refusal to DO
ana accordingly-3i it was held iii the. w>,ll.
considered case Of Doremus VS.. Hennes-
sly. 176 ILL.,, COS, thntSall parties to a con-
because OF his refusal to do some act
against his will {or Judgment are liable
for all overt acts illegally done in pur-
Of we ge tae
tive participants or not. Y.
No Right to Insist.
II. IN that case, as in the cases VIC have
cited above bn meg lhia5 W %Y the
right to Induce others byApersuasion and
argument to become members Of their
union. they have no right to insist that
person un ite8with them fix his
scale OF prices gus8 that of the union. and
make his refusal II prcteXtt to break lup
his business bysS Inducing his customers
to1brcall thelrscontructss and stop dealing
with him. 49 !. J. !.
8l But appellants contend that ,ppcllees
paid to ono Wi liam " ldeS the sumo one
hundred and forty ollnrs. q : lba'lbc,
with the malicious il,tcntst93 aAnnpy, lo
employ Wilde then, wns i, the hrihe belns
paid as an inducement to quit Ills sIcn,-
ployment and leave the. city Or Rich
mond. 10 sustain this charge four fiji
Sdavits made by Wilde We're offered by
appellants, These niliunts arc not only
contradictcd and s1.,creditcd by "a mum
her OF other Il flidnV!ts read behalf of
appellees, but they contradict and dis
credit themselves. n III Nos. and 2 he
makes various charges against members
: of tho union, the sum and substance OF
which is that certain. members ofs1thc
union aprroacledlt.s Tim. fferiug hay
employment and leave the city on Ricll-
Ssnlond. and tlllt after such discussion M
did receive from this union the sum ot
one hundred and forty tlolitrs and agreed
TO leave the city OF Richmond; while ii
The l4th OF October, 1905. llr made /;
/ certain proposttion to certain gentlemen
| ut the. cityStof Richmond, lllemhers OF
| the union. thnta,if they would advance
n him a certain sum of money he would
IN lNhve tllc city; rs twas not hls intentloi