Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 17.pdf/35

 THE GREEN BAG the employer or shopkeeper to refuse to policy and peculium of our country; but deal or to so threaten. The fact remains it is liberty regulated by law; and the motto that boycott involves so serious a breach of the law is: Sic utere tuo, ut alienum non of the industrial peace that it cannot be Uedas." permitted for any purpose whatsoever. This is a way in which a trades union may not be allowed to use the force of its organ As our law stands, therefore, in some ization, even if its purpose is to advance its instances concerted action is permitted; while against many kinds of joint action own interests. The leading case in America upon the redress may be had. It has been seen that point is probably Crump v. Commonwealth, simple striking is permitted in certain cases; 84 Va. 927 (1888). In this case the strikers a combination of laborers may, for example, dragged the whole community into their demand higher wages, and then leave in a dispute. They published a blacklist upon body if the increase is not granted. On the which they put the names of every hotel, other hand, it has been seen that workmen boarding house, tradesman or shopkeeper may not bring their combined force to bear who dealt with their former employers in upon third parties to induce them not to any way or who had anything to do with deal with their former employer. These the new employees. Finally matters came are the two extremes; the present problem to such a pass that the ringleaders were of the legality of the use of pressure by arrested; and, being found guilty by the the union to force non-union men out of the jury, they appealed upon points of law to same employment lies somewhere between the higher court. That court sustained the these two extremes. As this is one of the charge that a plot like this constituted a most important of modern questions, it might be well to state the leading cases crime. In dismissing the appeal Mr. Justice with considerable detail, so that there may Fauntleroy spoke very sharply; his conclu be clear appreciation of the precise issue sion was as follows: "It was proved that involved in this present discussion of thethe conspirators declared their set purpose right of a union to force a non-union man and persistent effort to 'crush' Baugh- out of the same employment. In Lucke v. Assembly, 77 Md. 396 (1892) man Brothers; that the minions of the boy cott committee dogged the firm in all their we have a rather aggravated case of union transactions; followed their delivery wagon; izing a shop. The plaintiff was a non-union secured the names of their patrons; and man; he was a non-union man against used every means short of actual physical his will as it were, because the assem force, to compel them to cease dealing bly had repeatedly refused to take him in with Baugnman Brothers — thereby causing although he had several times applied them to lose from one hundred and fifty for membership. Later the assembly de to two hundred customers and ten thousand manded of their employers, Ro^enfeld dollars of net profit. The acts alleged and Brothers, that they discharge this non-union proved in this case are unlawful, and in man, Lucke. Rosenfeld Brothers could not compatible with the prosperity, peace, and withstand the pressure; and they discharged civilization of the country; and, if they can Lucke at this dictation. Lucke then sued be perpetrated with impunity, by combi the assembly for damages for the loss of his nations of irresponsible cabals or cliques, job. The decision was for the plaintiff. Upon the final appeal Mr. Justice Roberts there will be the end of government, and of society itself. Freedom — individual and gave these as the reasons: "In this case, associated — is the boon and the boasted we think the interference of the appellee