boycott, or combination of employers, when made solely in defence to a combination of employees to raise wages, although the latter combination was expressly legalized by the Pennsylvania statute, which, however, did not include employers within its provisions. Incidentally the court raise a query whether the statute is not unconstitutional as being class legislation, and that the legalizing such combinations in labor disputes ought to extend to both parties to the contract, which is substantially the case in the English statute.

35

A still later case is that of Barr v. the Essex Trades Council, where the proprietor of a newspaper brought a bill in equity against eighteen labor unions in the city of Newark, one of which was incorporated, upon the following complicated but interesting state of facts: These labor unions had established an elaborate system, under the name of Essex Trades Council, a voluntary association composed of delegates from each union, by which, upon reports of the individual members of the unions dealing with any shop or place of business, made upon blank slips, to the central body, cards were issued by the Essex Trades Council, to be displayed in shops, stating that the establishments so favored were "especially deserving the patronage of or

35 30 Atlantic, 881.

ganized fair consumers." A failure by any union to report upon a shop with which its members dealt for two consecutive months, placed its products under the ban of organized labor as represented by the Essex Trades Council. The next step was an agreement in writing purporting to be made between the Essex Trades Council and a tradesman, by which the latter, "in return for the patronage of united fair consumers," promises and agrees to buy as a consumer, engage as employer, keep as dealer, as exclusively as he can, such labor and goods as may be announced as "fair" by a particular union and endorsed by the Essex Trades Council. The cards then issued, certifying that the person so favored is a "fair consuming dealer," were of such size, color, and appearance that if publicly displayed in stores or places of business. would attract attention; and there was also a small pamphlet published by the Essex Trades Council, called "The Fair List of Newark, N. J.," announced to be "for the information of people who buy service or product, and who have enterprise enough to seek to place their money where it will do the most good," containing names and addresses of tradesmen, persons in business, lawyers, and others in Newark. This is perhaps the most elaborate system of attempted labor union for all purposes of trade or dealings, including a combination system of

general boycott upon all the world not so favored, which has yet come to the notice of the courts.

Upon this state of facts the complainant had made a contract to employ what is called "plate matter "that is, made of stereotyped plates for certain sheets of newspaper, which plates were manufactured in New York, and were used generally throughout the state of New Jersey by newspapers, except one in the city of Newark, without complaints by the typographical unions. All his employees were, however, members of the local typographical union, which had declared against the use of such plate matter in the city of Newark, as the plaintiff knew. He sought to have this resolution relaxed in favor of his paper; but, on its refusal so to do, nevertheless informed his foreman that he would use plate matter on and after March 13, 1894, but that the union scale of wages would be maintained, and that he would gladly retain the services of such as might be willing to stay. Some of his employees remained, but others left; and the union withdrew its endorsement of the newspaper, and informed the Essex Trades Council of the fact, whereupon the Council issued a circular in the following words: "Friends, one and all! Leave this council - boycotting Newark Times alone. Cease buying it! Cease handling it! Cease advertising in it! Keep the money

of fair men moving only among fair men. Boycott the boycotter of organized fair labor." This circular was distributed in the city of Newark; various other smaller circulars were issued, and the bill alleged that in consequence many dealers in and purchasers of the complainant's paper, and advertisers therein, had been intimidated from continuing to buy and advertise therein. The court found that an injury had thereby been done the complainant's business, and, without deciding that the action of the defendants constituted a criminal conspiracy, the statute of New Jersey now requiring an overt act, held that they had clearly combined to injure the plaintiff's property and freedom in disposing of his own capital and managing his own business; that they were, therefore, liable for damages, and that, although the boycott was not conducted with violence or physical intimidation, the moral intimidation caused by the complainant's fear of loss of business was sufficient to make the combination unlawful, and an injunction was granted prohibiting defendants "from distributing or circulating any circulars, printed resolutions, bulletins, or other publications containing appeals or threats against the Newark Times, and from making any threats or using any intimidation to the dealers or advertisers in such newspapers."

Finally, the last reported case on the subject

36

of boycotting goes back to the criminal law, and, like almost the first American case on the subject, occurred in Vermont. Defendants were indicted for conspiracy to prevent one McClure from working for the Wetmore & Morse Granite Co., by threats and intimidation, and for coercing granite cutters to join the National Stone Cutters' Union, and preventing other granite cutters from obtaining work or entering the employment of the complainant, by threatening McClure that, if he did not join the union, they would organize a strike both against him and the complainant company. The conviction of the defendants was sustained, and the case of State v. Stewart reaffirmed.

Such

$ 59. American Statutes on Boycotting. being the court decisions on boycotting at common law and under the English statute, we are now in a position to understand the meaning and effect of the several statutes which have been passed in the states of the Union upon this subject; and in the first place, it may be well to remind the reader of the ordinary statutes against intimidation by one person, or by individuals acting in combination, which were set forth in 5 above. Of course, in the states which have such statutes applying to interference

36 State v. Dyer, 32 Atlantic Rep., 814.