Montana news. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-191?, 1908-06-04
Montana LABOR
Unions Victorious
Business House Has No Property Right in the Trade of
Any Particular Person---Labor Unions Have
Right to Declare Firm Unfair.

Slgnlfy that the dOers employ violence,
intimidation, or other unlawful CO.
ereive means, but that IL may be cor
reetly used in the sense of the act Of
a combination in refusing TO have bust
ness dealings with another until he re-
moved or ameliorates conditions which
are deemed inimical to the welfare Of
the members of the combination, or
some of them, or grants concessions
which are deemed TO make for that
purpose."
But what is there unlawful in the
act Of the union workingmen of Billings
in withdrawing their patronage from
the plaintiff Certainly it eanot be
said that Lindsay G. Company had a
property right in the trade of any
particular person. In this country
patronage depends upon good will, and
we do not think that it will be con.
tended by any one that il was wrong
full or unlawful, or violated any right
of the plaintiff company, for any par.
ticular individual in Billings to with.
draw his patronage from Lindsay &
Company, or from any other concern
which might be doing business with
that company, and that, too, without
regard to his reason for doing so.
But there can be found running
through our legal literature many re-
markable stateemnts that an act per.
fectly lawful when done by one person,
becomes by some sort of legerdemain
criminal when done by two OF more
persons acting in concert, and this
upon the theory that the concerted ac-
tion amounts to conspiracy. But
with this doctrine we do not agree.
II an individual is clothed with right
when acting alone, he does not lose
such right merely by acting with 9th
ers, each of whom is clothed with the
same right. If the act done is lawful,
the combination of several persons TO
commit it does not render it unlawful.
In other words, the mere combination
of action is not an element which gives
character to the act. II is the illegal
ity of the purpose to be accomplished,
or the illegal means used in further.
anee of the purpose, which makes the
act illegal.
We hold, then, that a labor organiza
tion may employ the boycott as herein
defined, in furtherance of the objects
Of its existence. If, however, the
means by which it enforces the boycott
are illegal, then il may render its mem
bers amenable TO the processes of the
law but If they are not, the courts are
powerless to render assistance to the
person or firm boycotted, even though
financial loss results as the direct con
sequence of the boycott. II may be
true that, speaking generally, no one
has the right Intentionally to do an act
for the purpose of injuring another g
business, but injury, however, in its
legal significance means damage result
ing from the violation Of legal right,
and IL is the violation of the legal
right which renders an act wrongful
in the eye of the law and makes il
aetionable.
If, then, these defendants and their
associates did not violate any legal
right of the plaintiff in withdrawing
their patronage from the company, or
in agreeing TO withdraw their patron.
age from any one who might patronize
Lindsay & Company, they cannot be
enioined from continuing the boycott
in force, so long as the means EN-
ployed to make the boycott effective
are not illegal. The evidence shows
that the only means used in thi.
instance was the publication of tine
circular in question, and this brings MS
to a consideration of the second propo.
sition involved.
.. (a) May a court of equity en-
] join the publication by an individual
of n circular of this character Z (b)
IL not, may il enjoin such publication
when made by number Of individ
uals acting collectively
(a) Article III Of our Constitution
is entitled; "a declaration of rights
of the people Of the State Of Mon
tana", and Section 10 of that article
so far as applicable here, reads as fol
lows; "No law shall be passed i'm
pairing the freedom OF speech; every
person shall DE free to speak, writ,
or publish whatever he will on any
subject, being responsible for all abus,
of that liberty" The language here
employed seems too clear TO admit OF
doubt or argument. The one funda
mental idea conveyed by this section
is, penalty for violation of the priv
ilege, not prevention Of its abuse. /
cannot be said that citizen Of Mon