Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1908-06-04

cure an auNance IN wages, cohstlluteu
criminal conspiracy, which was an
indictable offense at common law, al
though the same act done by only one
individual would not have been unlaw.
full. But by Statute 80 and SO, Vie
toria, Chapter So, the right of laboring
men to organize for their mutual pro
lection and benefit is directly recog'
nized in Great Britain. Whatever
may have been the attitude Of the
courts and legislative bodies in this
country toward labor organizations in
the past, il is sufficient for our pur-
pose to know that the right of work.
ingmen to organize for the improve.
ment of their industrial condition is
now generally admitted. The great di.
versity of opinions among the courts
has arisen over a consideration of the
question: What means may trade
unions employ to further the objects
of their organizations 1t is well
known that the means frequently EN-.
ployed are the strike and the boycott,
and, as an incident of each, pieketing,
tne use OF banners ana the pupileatioh
OF circulars.
IL Is insisted py the respondent com
pany that the defendants organized a
boycott OF piaintiiis business py
agreeing among themselves ana win
other members OF organized iapor, 10
withhold their patronage from the
piaintiff company, ana that they under
TOOK py coercion 10 eompei the retai'
dealers OF biiiings ana others TO ike
wise Withdraw their pa'ronagei tha'
tne resolution Oh oetoper 20, iso'' was
intended ana understood py the de'
remnants 10 express the ooJeet OF their
preconcerted design, ana that the pup
iiea'ioh OF the eircuiar was ror tne
purpose Oh ihtinidating tue re'aii deai'
ers ana others we tnink IL may ia'riy
De said 10 nave beeh SHOWN oy the
evidence that upon the ADOPTION OF the
resolution OF oetooer Io' ana upon tne
in'ehigence OF tnal action becoming
general among the union men there, IL
was UNDERSTOOD among those men that
they would not patronize LINDSAY q
company while the interdict was In
foree, and would not patronize anyone
VINO dld patronize that company ana
that they expected that all retailers
ana others In sympathy Win their or
ganlzations would cease trading Win
the piaintiff company.
whether the acts done by the de'
tends constituted boycott OF course
depends entirely upon the definitloh Oh
that term whieh may pe adopted lhe
most casual observation VIII disclose
that scarcely any TWO courts treating
OF the subject, formulate the same
definition. In fact the growth ana De
velopment OF the country, the lniiu
enee OF science and invention on the
mode OF conducting business, ana many
other causes have combined TO ehahgc
employee and, as consequent upon H.
the meaning OF the terms employed AZ
the time captain Boycott was literally
sent to Coventry by the tenants of
Conemara. We are referred ny re-
spondent to three definitions of the
term given IN eye. soo, as FOLLOWS;
"A combination OF many to cause
loss to one person by eoereing Others
against their will, to withdraw IRON
him their beneficial business inter
course, through threats that, unless
others do so, the many will cause sim
liar loss to them; an organized effort
to exclude person from business re-
lations with Others by persuasion, in
timidation and other acts which tend
to violence and thereby coeree him
through fear of resulting injury, to sub