Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/233

 THE GREEN BAG

tion in the facts is Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Society v. Glasgow Fleshers' Trade Defence Association, 35 Scottish Law Re porter, 645. Certain butchers of Glasgow •were the members of the defendant asso ciation. A system of cooperative stores formed the constituency of the plaintiff as sociation. The fleshers set about it to drive the stores out of the meat business. It ap peared that the imported meat market was carried on at only one place in Scotland, —• at the Yorkhill Wharf in Glasgow, — where the meats were sold by the importers at auction. The association considered that they would attain their object if they could induce the cattle salesmen who were used to sell the cattle at Yorkhill to refuse to sell to the cooperative stores, and with that view they approached those cattle salesmen and intimated that they would not buy at their auction sales unless they declined to sell to the cooperative stores. The cattle salesmen yielded to the pressure, and the defendants thereby forced the plaintiffs out of that line of business. Lord Kincairney, who heard the case, did not see that anything could be done about it. His course of reasoning is shown by the following extracts: "It would be absurd to shut one's eyes to the obvious fact that the ultimate aim of these defenders was, at least in part and probably wholly, the fur therance of their own interests by disabling or putting an end to the competition of the cooperative society fleshers firstly as bidders and secondly as retailers. It cannot, I think, be doubted that if A informs B that he will not deal with him unless he ceases to deal with C, and C thereby loses the cus tom of B, C has no action against A, alalthough he may in fact have suffered loss through his interference. Any single Glas gow butcher might resolve not to bid at the auctions of salesmen who received the bids of the cooperative societies. He would, of course, be free to bid or not as he pleased — nobody could compel him. Clearly, also, he might inform the salesmen of his resolu

tion, and he might go the length of asking them to exclude the cooperative store bid ders. Such a man would, of course, be laughed at for his pains. But the case would be widely different if a number of the butchers took that course; and here the question of conspiracy comes in, assuming that there was conspiracy. After all, the name does not signify. A conspiracy, com bination, or association, is, after all, nothing but a kind of contract. But, assuming con spiracy, it is not easy to see what the first defenders did which could subject them in damages. They were entitled to resolve to abstain from bidding at sales at which co operative bids were received. It was en tirely at their option to do that or not. It appears to me that the fleshers acted within their legal rights. It may be regrettable that they happened to have so much in their power. That is the accident of their position, and of the peculiar character of the foreign cattle market." The reasoning of these cases, and of the others that are like them, is obvious — too simple in view of the complexity of the problem. It is said that A has a right torefuse to deal with B, therefore A has a right to refuse to deal with B unless B will refuse to deal with C, and therefore A and others with him have a right to refuse to deal with B unless B will refuse to deal with C. So it is said, however outrageous the result, the logic of the law must not be set aside. Underneath affirmation of this sort lurks doubt; for if the result is wrong, the course of reasoning must be. There is an intermediate assumption that the indi vidual refusal by a single man is of the same character as a concerted refusal by many men. This may well be challenged as law, since it is contrary to fact. VI The true method of approaching this prob lem, it should be reiterated, is by way of justification — we are not examining abso lute rights, but relative rights. This is well