Courts and Legislatures Upon Labor Questions.
I07
to everybody. It is secret or private bar tions under the vague phrase of "industrial gaining which is much more likely to bring warfare," or by the excuse of selfish motive, on extortion or undue preference. This sort is, in the writer's opinion, a mistaken one. Statutes against trusts, therefore, as well of agreement, therefore, corresponds to the simple strike among employes, and we hold as statutes affecting labor combinations, are only sound and practicable in so far as they both to be lawful. When, on the other hand, you come to enforce, or extend to new cases, the old com the combination which aggressively seeks mon law principles of restraint of trade and to drive other traders out of the business, unlawful conspiracy. Up to now the de either because they do not agree to the finition of an unlawful conspiracy ( against schedule of prices or for any other reason, which there is always a civil, usually a crim you have the precise equivalent of the active inal remedy ) remains what it was : It is a combination oftivo or more persons to accom boycott when used by the labor organiza plish a eriminal, unlawful, or (a) immoral tions. The case of the Mogul Steamship purpose by means which may be unlawful or Co. v. McGregor — though strained to jus (b) lawful; or a combination to accomplish a tify almost every combination that has oc curred since, particularly in labor cases — lawful purpose by criminal, illegal (c) while it recognizes that persons might com fraudulent or immoral means, for a purpose bine to give peculiar advantages to persons which could only be brought about by the use trading with themselves, never authorized ofsuch means. The attempt to-day is to modi the concerted attack by other means upon fy this law in the noted particulars : ( a ) by outsiders. A combination of capitalists not holding that the injury of another person or only to have, themselves, no dealings with class of persons is not an immoral purpose; persons outside the ring, but to compel by (b) still more, by holding that it matters not indirect means other persons to have no what the purpose is so long as the means or dealings with them, not to buy or sell of acts be lawful, and ( c ) that if the purpose them, is not only in restraint of trade, but be lawful the combination is not unlawful may fairly be brought under the broader unless the acts are criminal or illegal, not merely immoral or unsocial, of which latter doctrine of the boycott; that is, a con spiracy to injure a definite person or class class the best example is a combination to of persons; and the fact, as is sometimes better one's own condition by means of in claimed, that such conspiracy is motived by juring others. Undoubtedly one person can the selfish desire of the parties to benefit do this. He can improve his business by themselves, is surely no legal excuse. The scheming to injure a competitor; and while line may seem narrow, but it is clear. Both there is more doubt about this third point in cases of labor and capital, persons and than about the other two, and while this corporations may combine to make joint modification of the common law has receiv contracts or common bargaining to sell their ed the sanction of the recent English statute own commodity,be it labor or capital, at such as to labor combinations only, considering price and under such terms as they will; but our constitutions and the nature of the prob in neither case can they combine to control lems we have before us, it may well be or compel the action or non-action of others; doubted whether even this change in the law and the tendency to justify such combina is safe or wise.
