Bisbee daily review., 1917-12-23

 to one of the mines threatened (the Richland). and preparations of like character were in progress at the Hitchman and the Glendale at the time the restraining order was made in this cause.
 If there by any practical distinction between organizing the miners and organizing the mine. it has no applica- tion Co this case. Unionizing the min CTS is but a step in the process of unionizing the mine. followed by the latter almost as a matter of course. Plaintiff is as much entitled to pre- vent the first step as the second. 20 far as it's own employees are concern ed. and 10 be protected against ir- reparable injury resulting from either. Besides. the evidence shows. without any dispute, that defendants eontem- plated no halfway measures. but were bent on organizing the mine. the "con- sent of plaintiff Co be procured through such control of its smplo- yees as would render any further in- dependent operation of the mine out of the question. This is evident from the discussions and resolutions of the international and sub-district conven- tions. nom what was said by defend ants Green. Zelenka and Watkins to plaintiffs manager. and to the oper- ator of the Richland. and from all that was said and done by Hughes in his effort to organize the Hitchman. Glen dale. and Richland mines.
 In short. at the time the bill was filed. defendants. although having full notice of the terms of employment ex. isting between plaintiff and it's min CTS. were engaged in an earnest effort to subvert those relations without plaintiffs consent, and to alienate a sufficient number of the men to shut down the mine. to the end that the fear of losses through stoppage of operations might coeree plaintiff into recognizing the union" at the cost of its own independence. The methods resorted to by their "organizer" were such as have been described. The legal consequences remain for dis cuSSiOn.
 The facts we have reoited are eith- CT admitted or else proved by clear and undisputed evidence and indubit- able inferences therefrom. The pro oeedings of the international and sub district conventions were shown by the introduction of official verbatim reports. properly authenticated. It is objected that these proceedings, espe- cially in so far as they include the dec laratiOns and conduct of others than the answering defendants, are not ad- miSSible because the existence of 6 criminal or unlawful conspiracy is not made to appear by evidence aliunde. The objection is untenahle In order that the declarations and conduct of third parties may be admissible in such a case. it is necessary to show by independent evidence that there was a combination between them and defendants, but it is not necessary to show by independent evidence that the combination was criminal or otherwise unlawful The element Of illegality may be shown by the declarations themselves. The rule of evidence is commonly applied in criminal cases. but Is Of general operation; indeed. it orieinSte0 in the i9W of partnership. It depends upon the principle that when any number of persons associate themselves together in the prosecution of a common plan or enterprise. lawful or unlawful. from the very ScS of as Sociation there arises kind of part uerShip. each member being constitut- cd the agent of all. so that the act or declaration of one, in furtherance of the common object. is the act of all. and is admissible as primary and or iginal evidence against them. Plea sants V. Fant. ss Wall. Ills. 1ls; Con necticut Mutual Life InS. Co, V. Hill- man. tSS '. .. s0S. siS; Story Part. secs. lO7. l0S: l Greenleaf Ev., secs. lls llS. (lS4 b. cl; Starkie Ev. (ed Ed s5. s6: King V. Hardwick. n East SIS. 1S5. 5Se: Sandilands V Marsh. 2 Barn. & Aid. 61S. 67s: Wood V. Brad dick. 1 Taunt i04. i0S; Van Reinis- dyk V. Kane (Story. Jl. l Gall. $50. 6S5: sS Fed. Gas l061. l069, Aldrich V. Warren. Is Me. fSS. 4sS; Pierce V Wood. g N. II. 5l9. 5Si; Page V. Park CT. Co N II. t7. 6s; State V. Thibeau. 30 Vs. 100. 105; Jenne V. Josyln. q Vt 4-S. 4S4: Locke V. Stearns, Metc. 560. 56S: Lowe V. Dalrymple. IF Pa. 564. 3 s S; Main V. Aukam, App. D. C. 5I. 56.
 Upon kindred principle, the declar-