Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-17
STOVE COMPANY
GETS INJUNCTION
Continued from First Page)

! Continued from First Page)
is true, but the benefits sought were the
remote purpose, which has to be secured
4 through the more immediate purpose Of
coerctng the plaintiffs into complying
| with their den -ands, or otherwise inturing
them In their business, and the court can
| not IN this proceeding, look beyond the
| immediate injury to the remote results
| 1t Is earnestly commended by defend
/ anus counsel. however. that as each one
OF the defendants has the right to refuse
to patronize the customers of plaintiff I'M
less such customers will discontinue ham
ding plaintiffs stoves, that, therefore,
they may combine in their refusal; in
other words. that there cannot be an I'M
lawful combination where each member
thereof might do. individually. the thing
contemplated. without responsibility to
the law therefor. This contention has
much of FEASIBILITY. 1t is undoubtedly
difficult to formulate the legal basis of
the proposition that what is lawful for
one to do becomes unlawful when done In
combination. 1t seems to evade accurate
analysis.
| Justice Holmes Quoted.
This feature is brought out in the dis
senting opinion of Mr.. Justice Holmes. in
| Eogelohe against Guntzer. although he
, adds: Tt would be rash to say that some
as yet unformulated truth may not be
hidden under this proposition and ad-
mits: That whatever may be the law in
the case of single defendant, that when
a PLAINTIFF proves that several persons
have combined and conspired to lnJure
| his business and have done acts produc-
ing that effect he has SHOWN temporal
damage and a cause of action. unless the
facts disclose or the defendants prove
| some ground OF excuse or justification,
| and take 1t to he settled and rightly set
tled. that doing that damage by comolned
| persua sion Is aetionable as we'll as dong
sit by falsehood and force. But no"e'et
unsatisfactory may be the statement OF
| the as yet unformulated truth hidden un.
der the proposition, the proposition itself
Is too firmly engrafted upon both the clVii
and criminal law to be ignored MI rt nus
| tice Harlan. in the case Oh arthur
against Cakes. thus states IT:
| "It Is one thing for single 1ndiVloual
| or for several individuals. each ac1lne
upon his own responsibility ana Io' +h III
cooperation with others. to form the
purpose of inficting actual injury upon
| the property or rights of Others 1t IS
quite different thing in the eye OF the
law for many persons to combine or con
spire together with the intent not simply
| OF asserting their rights or OF accom-
| plishing lawful ends by peaceable
methods, but Of employing their united
energies to injure others or the pubic.
An intent on the part of single person
to irjure the rights of others or of the
| public is not in itself a wrong OF Whlch
the law will take cognizance. unless some
| Injurious act be done in execution or the
unlawful intent. But comoination OF
| two or more persons with such an intent,
! and under circumstances that give them
4 when so combined power to DO an IN
jury they could not possess as individ-
uals acting Jointly, has always oeen
recognized as in itself wrongful anu IL
legal.
Constitutional Rights Involved.
cit was also commended" continues the
.Iopinfon, ION behalf of defendants. that to
restrain the publication Of plaintiff s name
on the unfair or neutrality-suspicious. list
would be an infringement on their con-
stitutional rights and an assault upon
the freedom of the press; or that II plain
| tiff had any redress for such publication
it was by action for the libel, and that
equity will not enjoin the publication OF
! libel All this would have merit If the act
Of defendants in making such puohcatlon
stood alone. unconnected WITH otneI con- ,,.
| it .is not an isolated fact; according TO the
allegations of the bill and the supporting
affldavits 1t is an act In conspiracy 10
destroy plaintiffs business. an act wmcn
| has a definite meaning and instruction to
| those associated with defendants, ana an
| act which is the basis for conduct on the
| part of defendants associates. Wnich I'M
lawfully interferes with plalntlfi rshI
| of freedom to trade with whom he
! pleases The argument of counsel Is
! fully answered by the language or MT.
Justice Holmes in the case OF Alkens agt.
Wisconsin,: NO conduct has such an ap-
| solute privilege as to justify all posslbie
schemes of which 1t may be part. The
most innocent and constitutionally pro-
tected OF acts or omissions may be made
! a step in criminal plot, and II 1t Is
step in a plot, neither its innocence nor
. 10 Sufficient
the punishment of the plot by law
Aggregation of Organizations.
ut is asserted in the answer of defend
ants, and urged in the argument, that
the defendant, the American Federation
| of Labor, Is federation OF organizations
and has no individual membership. 1t
would be difficult to understand how the
| different ORGANIZATIONS. made up of in
dividual members. and existing only by
reason OF such individual membership,
| could be federated into central organi-
/ eaton without such individual members
| becoming also members OF such central
organization; especially would this be diff
| ficult In court of equity. which looks
through the forms to reach the substance.
But II this could be accomplished as
4 legal or equitable fact, the testimony
i shows conclusively that the defendant has
! not done So On page 1T of the printed
/ affidavits is given facsimile from the
1 Report OF the PrOceed1ngS OIL the COnFen-
Il ton of the Federation, 1904, showing that
i II claimed to be then composed Of more
|, than 100000 individual members. And
on page 202. in the report Of the defend
4 ant Gonlpers. as president of said fedora
\ ton, he refers to the activity of all our
organizers, our organizations and our
members.
Business as Property.
Justice Gould proceeds to refute the
contention of the defendants that the
stove company's business is not property
or property right; that 1t is a mere alb
straction, incapable OF judicial protection
He cites numerous state and federal de-
cs!ons holding the converse of this state
ment to be true. Quoting from one of
| these decisions, he says: "A persons &C.
cupation or calling. by means of which he
earns livelihood and endeavors to bet
ter his condition and to provide for and
support himself and those dependent
upon him. is property within the meaning
Of the law, and entitled to protection as
such; and, contested by the merchant,
By the capitalist, by the contractor or la
borer, 1t, aside from the goods. chattels.
money, or effects employed and used in
connection Herewith, property In every
sense Of the word"
Passing to the second question as to
the connection of the defendants with the
combination or conspiracy in such man
ner as to make them amendable to the