Associations of men may endeavor peaceably, and in a reasonable manner, to persuade others to cease or abstain from work; but if by force or intimidation they endeavor to control the free agency or overcome the free will of their fellow workmen, they become guilty of a penal offense.' The law encourages combinations for good, and combinations of workmen to better their condition by legitimate and fair means are commendable and should be encouraged. But combinations for evil purposes, whether by one class of men or another, are detrimental to the public weal, and cannot be regarded with favor by the courts."

In Com. v. Sheriff, 15 Phila. 393, the court held it not unlawful to notify employers that a trade union association had decided upon an increase of wages to journeyman printers, and unless such increase was paid a strike would be declared. The increase being refused a strike was declared, and the court excused the invasion. of the employers' premises to induce the workmen to strike, on the ground that it was a place of business and the employers did not expressly forbid it, and that the foreman, a member of the trade union, was present, and as far as he represented his employer might be held to consent. In that case only peaceful means were used. But the ruling can hardly be sustained, on legal principles, for the law will not imply authority to enter premises, open to the public for purposes of business only, where the object of the person who enters is to injure the business of the proprietor. Even in a railway station the implied right of entry is limited to those having business with the railroad company, and it must be exercised consistently with the interests of the railroad, and a traveler can only enter a reasonable time prior to the departure of his train.*

'Reg. v. Shepherd, 11 Cox, C. C. 325.

State v. Glidden, 3 New Eng. Rep. 849, 55 Conn. 46. And the rule applies to corporations guilty of conspiracy Wayne Pike Co. v. Hammons (Ind.) 27 N. E. 487; Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co. 42 Hun, 153, 8 Cent. Rep. 667, 106 N. Y. 669; Krulevitz v. Eastern R. Co. 2 New Eng. Rep. 37, 140 Mass. 573; Western News Co. v. Kilmartin, 33 Kan. 510; Morton v. Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. 34 Hun, 366, 4 Cent. Rep. 397, 103 N. Y. 645.

Webber v. Barry, 9 West. Rep. 872, 66 Mich. 127; New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Wenger, 17 Week. L. Bull. 306.

Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79.

But while excusing the unlawful entry, the court took care to condemn the resort to threats and menace of injury to persons or property, in the enforcement of a demand for an advance of wages.

$77. Present Condition of the Law Concerning Trade or Labor Combinations, "Picketing, " "Boycotting."— It may be accepted then as the common law in this country, and this is not changed by state statutes, but they are simply declaratory of existing law, that the labor and skill of the workman, the plant of the manufacturer, the experience and equipment of the farmer, and the learning and reputation of the professional and expert, are in equal sense property. The possessors of such property, whether employers or employed, may combine in trade unions or associations, or otherwise, to advance the value of their property and their interests by lawful means, including the refusal to extend competition among workmen, by admitting apprentices to learn trades. They may use arguments and persuasion to induce others to unite in such combination.

Even "picketing," which means watching and speaking to the workmen, as they go to or return from their employment, to induce them to leave the service, is not necessarily unlawful; nor is it unlawful to use terms of persuasion towards them to accomplish that object, but if the besetting and watching is carried to such an extent that it occasions a dread of loss, it is unlawful.'

Men may assemble for a lawful purpose, to discuss questions for any lawful purpose; but no man or body of men can lawfully go upon the premises of an employer and seek to induce the employés to cease work. The very show of numbers, unaccompanied by actual or threatened violence is, in many cases, under existing circumstances, intimidation. The courts will, in such case, interpose by injunction against those attempting such interference, for the remedy by action of trespass is not sufficient in a case involving a continuous series of acts in pursuance of a plan.'

'Snow v. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 186.

New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Wenger, 17 Week. L. Bul. 306; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co. 68 Pa. 173; Stanton v. Allen, 5 Denio, 434.

New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. v. Wenger, 17 Week. L. Bul. 306; Reg. v.
Hibbert, 13 Cox, C. C. 82; Reg. v. Bauld, 13 Cox, C. C. 282.

But an action of trespass will also lie.'

Workmen stand upon the same broad level of equality before the law with all other vocations, professions, or callings, respecting the disposition of their labor and the advancement of their associated interests. It is unlawful for employers to wrongfully to coerce, intimidate, or hinder the free choice of workmen in the disposal of their time and talents. It is unlawful for workmen wrongfully to coerce, intimidate, or hinder employers in the selection of such workmen as they choose to employ. No employer can say to a workman he must not work for another employer; nor can a workman say to an employer he cannot employ the service of another workman. Every man is at liberty to enter into a combination to keep up the price of wages, but if he enters into a combination for the object of interfering with the perfect freedom of action of another man, it is an offense at common law.'

A combination of employés whose aim it is to dictate to an employer whom he should discharge from his employ is unlawful, as an unwarrantable interference with the conduct of his business."

A letter written by a "chairman" of an organized body to an employé in a shop that he might remain in it to do a particular kind of work, but to confine himself to work designated by the writer, is an unwarrantable interference with the business."

It is an indictable conspiracy for several employés to combine and notify their employer that, unless he discharges certain enumerated persons, they will in a body quit his employment.*

Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1; Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co. 8 Cent. Rep. 667, 106 N. Y. 669; Buffalo Lubricating Oil Co. v. Everest, 30 Hun, 586; Johnston Harvester Co. v. Meinhardt, 9 Abb. N. C. 393; Mapstrick v. Romge, 9 Neb. 390; Haskins v. Royster, 70 N. C. 601; Baughman v. Richmond Typographical Union, 11 Va. Law Journal (April, 1887), 196; Jones v. Blocker, 43 Ga. 331; Payne v. Western & A. R. Co. 13 Lea, 507.

Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 551.

State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 155; Rex v. Ferguson, 2 Stark. 489; Rex v. Ryckerdike, 1 Mood. & R. 179.

'Re Wabash R. Co. 24 Fed. Rep. 220.

State v. Donaldson, 32 N. J. L. 155, following State v. Norton, 23 N. J. L. 44, and disapproving State v. Rickey, 9 N. J. L. 364; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna, 24 Blatchf. 244, 30 Fed. Rep. 48.

Where shoemakers combine, agreeing not to work for anyone who employs men working below the standard of wages fixed by themselves, the combination is void.'

Where penalties are prescribed by a trades union to be paid by employers for violation of its rules in order to secure immunity from interference, it is illegal.'

Rules which provide that no member shall call at any shop, where a dispute has arisen, and for reference to the executive council of such dispute, are illegal.'

So an association formed under a rule which provides that a member binding his son in a shop where non-union men are employed should be fined, is illegal.'

Displaying banners with devices as a means of threat and intimidation to prevent others from entering into a person's employment will be restrained by injunction at the suit of the employer.*

The reports, English and American, are full of illustrations of the doctrine that a combination of two or more persons to effect an illegal purpose, either by legal or illegal means, whether such purpose be illegal at common law or by statute; or to effect a legal purpose, by illegal means, whether such means be illegal at common law or by statute, is a common law conspiracy. Such combinations are equally illegal whether they promote objects or adopt means that are per se indictable, or promote objects or adopt means that are per se oppressive, immoral, or wrongfully prejudicial to the rights of others. If they seek to restrain trade, or tend to the destruction of the material prosperity of the country, they work injury to the whole public. These propositions are the

'People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. 9; The Cordwainer's Case, 1 Yates, Sel. Cas. 112; People v. Trequier, 1 Wheeler, Crim. Cas. 142.

Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1.

Hornby v. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B. 153.

Rigby v. Connol, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 482; Hornby v. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B. 153.

Sherry v. Perkins, 6 New Eng. Rep. 561, 147 Mass. 212; Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555; Gilbert v. Mickle, 4 Sandf. Ch. 357, 7 L. ed. 1132; Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 551; Boston Diatite Co. v. Flor ence Mfg. Co. 114 Mass. 69; Prudential Assur. Co. v. Knott, L. R. 10 Ch. 142; Saxby v. Easterbrook, L. R. 3 C. P. Div. 339; Hermann Loog v. Bean, L. R. 26 Ch. Div. 306: Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. Massam, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 763; Thomas v. Williams, L. R. 14 Ch. Div. 864; Hill v. HartDavies, L.R. 21 Ch. Div. 798; Day v. Brownrigg, L. R. 10 Ch. Div. 294; Gaskin v. Balls, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 324.

clear deduction of the cases, and breathe the spirit of equality and justice.

The principle upon which the cases, English and American, proceed, is that every man has the right to employ his talents, industry, and capital as he pleases, free from the dictation of others; and if two or more persons combine to coerce his choice in this behalf, it is a criminal conspiracy. The labor and skill of the workman, or the professional man, be it of high or low degree, the plant of the manufacturer, the equipment of the farmer, the investments of commerce, are all, in equal sense, property. If men by overt acts of violence destroy either, they are guilty of crime. The anathemas of a secret organization of men combined for the purpose of controlling the industry of others by a species of intimidation that works upon the mind, rather than the body, are quite as dangerous, and generally altogether more effective than acts of actual violence. And while such conspiracies may give to the individual directly affected by them a private right of action for damages, they at the same time lay a basis for an indictment, on the ground that the State itself is directly concerned in the promotion of all legitimate industries and the development of all its resources, and owes the duty of protection to its citizens engaged in the exercise of their callings. The good order, peace, and general prosperity of the State are directly involved in the question.

The exposure of a legitimate business to the control of an association that can order away its employés, and frighten away others that it may seek to employ, and thus compel it to cease the further prosecution of its work, is a condition of things utterly at war with every principle of justice, and with every safeguard of protection that citizens under our system of government are entitled to enjoy. The direct tendency of such intimidation is to establish over labor and over all industries a control that is unknown to the law, and that is exerted by a secret association of conspirators, that is actuated solely by personal considerations, and whose plans, carried into execution, usually result in violence and the destruction of property.

That evils exist in the relations of capital and labor, and that workmen have grievances that oftentimes call for relief, are facts