Evening star., 1942-06-15

people give the privilege Of pro-
fessional monopoly and the people
may take it away"
At another point, the court point
ed out that the appellants attempted
to show absence Of restraint Of
trade by contending that Group
Health Association is an illegal Or
ganization. or that it is engaged in
illegal activities. With regard to
this the court said:
1T Is elementary that q person is
not privileged to kill another simply
because the latter is q bad man.
Neither can Justification for the
commission of a crime be found in
the fact that its commission bene-
fitted the community; and evidence
offered for such q purpose is prop
erly excluded. Nor is the fact that q
crime was committed with the in
tent to accomplish some ultimate
good, an excuse for its commission
even If it was for the purpose Of en-
forcing the law.
The same rule applies in con-
Spiracy cases as In criminal cases
generally. Thus it was no defense
to a charge of conspiracy to dyna-
mite a mans house that the house
was a disreputable resort, a place
where moonshine whisky was sold.
and where lewd women congregated
for unlawful purposes"
Gn this latter statement, the
court was referring to previous
court decision which dealt with a
case where this defense was set
forth.)
One of the medical societies princi-
pal contentious was that the jury's
verdict acquitting the individual
members of the two groups and find
ing the groups themselves guilty
was so inconsistent as to require
that the guilty verdict be set aside.
Answering this argument, the court
said:
1T has been held many times that
inconsistency in verdicts does not
require the result contended for by
appellants. And this is true, even
though the inconsistency can be
explained by no rational considera-
ton. The question for us is whether
the conviction is consistent with the
evidence. Complete identity of parti-
cipation in the conspiracy was not
necessary upon the part of the par
ticipants. either in fact or in law
While such complete identity is not
necessary in order to sustain a ver-
dict when several persons jointly
tried are convicted. lack of 1t may
be enough to explain away a sup
posed inconsistency when some are
acquitted and others convicted
In closing its opinion, the court
said:
I'VE have carefully examined ap-
pellants' other contentious and find
them to be without merit. AS we
read the record the case was tried
carefully and fairly. The jury was
properly instructed, and the evil
dence was adequate to support the
verdictS."
Contention Answered.
Discussing the contention that
medical organizations activities did
not constitute unlawful restraint,
the court said:
THE first of these (contentions)
is that the controversy here involved
is labor dispute: hence that appel
lants are excluded from the opera
ton of the Sherman Act (Which
prohibits illegal restraint of trade)
by virtue of provisions of the Clay
ton Act, and of the Norris-La
Guardia Act (Which protect the
rights of labor.
Presumably appellants conten-
ton casts medical doctors in the
role of laborers; Group Health In
the role of employer; and them
selves CANA and the District
Society in the role of labor organ
izations, or perhaps in a role COM
parable to that of the New Negro
Alliance: all this on the assumption
that medical practice, the furnish
ing of medical services. and the
furnishing of hospital services. come
within the common law definition
of trade; with the consequence, they
argue, that controversy arising be-
tween these three groups, or any OF
them, concerns terms or conditions
of employment or the associa-
ton or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining
changing, or seeking to arrange
terms, or conditions of employment
Chere the court was quoting
from the Norris-La Guardia Act.
Labor Has Broad Meaning.
That medical doctors, lawyers
teachers and other professional peo-
pie can be and are employed there
Is no doubt. Some professions
or pseudo professional groups have
organized themselves into unions
Medical societies and bar associa-
tions are sometimes referred to BY
laboring people as doctors unions
and lawyers unions But after al
1t is a labor dispute which is the
subject of definition and applica-
ton in these acts CClayton and
Norris-La Guardia Acts). Although
in the broad sense, all forms of men.
tai and physical exertion may be
called labor, even including attend
ance at a symphony concert, or the
labor of childbirth; and although
a dispute concerning any form oi
such labor might perhaps be called
a labor dispute. the purpose of Con-
gress seems to have been to describe
the more limited range of activity
The court emphasized that
neither the Clayton Act, nor the
t.