A^ ^«^ 0-' = -^^ x = -■ — JD u^ == JD -J = L ) ' Cj ? ^ ^^■^ r- M — ' rn JJ / M^B. = 10 4 — 4 — = — i — ^ ^ 3 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES LAW LIBRARY ::*;•:'■:;■. '.<■ 'liil>ited. Cass. ap. Caen, Oct. 21, 1897. 10 BOYCOTTING Italy. Pen. Code. art. 155, et. s. Similar to the French law. Germany. The law of June 21, 1869, art. 153 im- poses penalties against those who w^ish to coerce others by violence, threats, interdiction or otherwise. Str. G. B. c. 360, par. 11. The boycott ir. practi- cally declared to be illeeal.- United States There is no federal law directly dealing with bo>'- cotts. The Anti-trust Law has been applied in vari- ous cases (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, Title 56B. p. 3200; Act of July 2, 1890. sec. 1-8) Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. Or. & Tex. Pae. Ry. 1894, 62 Fed. 803. In re Phelan, 1894, G2 Fed. Rep. 824: U.S. v. Debs et al. 1894, 64 Fed. 724: U. S. v. Cassidy et al. 1895, 67 Fed. 098. Boycotts have also been declared illegal on the basis of interference with the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Law. In re Grand Jury, 1894, 62 Fed. 40: S. Cal. Ry. v. Ruth- erford et al. 1894, 62 Fed. 796. Federal courts have also taken account of the law against interference with the United States mails. In re Grand Jury, 1894, 62 Fed. 840; U. S. v. Cassidy et al. 1895, 67 Fed. 698. U. S. v. Debs et al. 1894, 64 Fed. 724. Federal courts sometimes declare boycotting to be unlawful interference with another's business and pun- ishable under the common law of conspir^cy.^ In- junctions have very frequently been granted against boycotts bv federal courts. ' In Enfrlanrl the courts may punish a peaceable boycott only as a civil conspiracy. In the United States it may be punished a.*; a criminal con- spiracy. See page 8. BOYCOTlI^G 11 Alabama. Laws, 1905. no. 329, sec. 1-4. It is un- lawful for two or more persons to conspire to prevent a lawful business, or for any person to go near or loi- ter about the premises of business in order to mfluence others not to deal with a person, firm or corporation, or to picket in order to interfere with a lawful busi- ness, or to print or circulate notice of a "boycott," boycott cards, stickers, dodgers or "unfair lists," or to publish that such action is contemplated. No black- list, unfair list, or similar list can be punished because of any lawful act or decision of a judicial or public official. Penalty is fine not less than $50 nor more than $500. or imprisonment not over sixty days. Gen- eral provisions against interference with employment and the use of intimidation are included in Ih.is statute. Arizona. Pen. Code, 1901, sec. l^U. General Con- spiracy Law. Application doubtful. Arkansas. Dig. 1904, sec. 5030. General law pro- hibiting interference with employment v.hen undv;r contract. Application doubtful. California. Pen. Code, 1903, c. 289, sec. i. Xo agreement to do an act in furtherance of a t'-ade dis- pute shall be deemed criminal, be indictable as a crim- inal conspiracy or be enjoined when such act if com- mitted by an individual is not punishable a? a crime. Force or violence is, howe\Ter, prohibited. Yet iu Jordahl V. Hayda et al. 190.J, 82 Pai-. 1079, it was held that l>oycotting is eujoined wlieu there are aets f)t" in- timidation in tlireatenino- prospective customer.s and that it is not uece.ssary to show actual exercise of physical t'orcf <»r violence. Colorado. Acts, 1905. c. 79, sec. 1-5. It is a mis- 12 BOYCOTTING demeanor for any person to loiter about or parole streets, alleys, roads, highways, trails or places of busi- ness, to influence others not to deal with any person, finn or corporation, or to picket in order to interfere with or obstruct any lawful lousiness, or to print or circulate notice of "boycott," boycott cards, stickers, banners, signs, or dodgers, or to publish the name of any judicial or public officer in any of thi above man- ners because of any lawful act or decision. Penalty is fine not less than $10 nor more than $250 or imprison- ment not over sixty days, or both. The statute includes provisions against intimidation and force. Connecticut. Gen. St. 1902, sec. 1296. General iStatute against intimidation and threats to prevent in- terference in lawful action. This statute covers boycotting. State v, Glidden, 1887, 8 At. 890. Delaware. Rev. Code, 1893, p. 928. Prohibition of interference with employment in case of si-^ikes on railroads. Application doubtful. District of Cohimbia.^ Florida. Acts, 1893, c. 4144. General statute pro- hibiting conspiracy against workingmen. Georgia. Pen. Code, 1895, sec. 1 19-126. Tt is a miodemeanor to hinder the engagement of a person in a lawful business by threats, violence, intimidation or other unlawful means. Laws, 1901, no. 390, sec. 1-4. Statute against inter- ference with employment. * No statute against boycottiDg. BOYCOTTL\Lr 13 Idaho. Ann. Code, 1901, sec. 4686. General con- spiracy act. Application doubtful. Illinois. Rev. St. 1905, c. 38, sec. 40. Two or more persons, or the officers or executive coinmitt.e of any society, organization or corporation who issue any circular or edict to establish a so called "boycott" or blacklist, or who distribute any notices fradulently or maliciously intending- to wrongfully and wickedly injure the person, character, business, employment or property of another, or who do an illegal act injurious to the public trade, health, morals, police or administra- tion of public justice, or who prevent competition in letting out public contracts or who induce persons not to enter such competition, arc guilty of conspiracy. Penalty is imprisonment in the state penitentiary not over five years, or fine not over $2,000, or both, A circular of a business association directing members not to deal with a certain person for alleged default toward an- other member is not actionable. Ulery v. Chi. Live .Stock Exchange, 1894, 54 111. App. 233. c. 38, sec. 158. General statute against intimidation by combinations. c. 18, sec. 159. Act against the intimidation of workmen. ' c. 38, sec. 160. Act against the entering of premises to intimidate. Indiana. Ann. St. 1901. sec. 3312m-3312u. Any person, firm or association of persons agreeing to pre- vent anv wdioleisale or retail dealer or manufacturer from selling to any dealer, mechanic or artisan, or any one who obeys such request, because said dealer, arti- san or mechanic is not a member of a combination or 14 • BOYCOTTING association, is guilty of conspiracy against trade. Such agreements are void in law. Fine not less than $50 nor more than $2,000, or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. County prosecuting attorney is to prosecute violations. Damages may be granted. loiva. Code, 1897, sec. 5059. Conspiracy with the fraudulent or malicious intent wrongfully to injure the person, character, business, property or rights in property of another i,5 prohibited. Application doubt- ful. Kansas. Gen. St. 1905, sec. 2481. It is unlawful for any person or persons willfully or maliciously, by any act or by intimidation, to interfere or conspire to interfere with a lawful business. Application doubt- ful. Kentucky. St. 1903, sec. 802-804. Prohibits the obstruction of railroads etc. by violence, intimidation and coercion. Application doubtful. Lamsiana. Rev. Laws, 1904, sec. 944. Law against intimidation of seamen. ■^ Boycotting u hotel by refusing to buy from drunuuers who stay there is actionable for damages. Webb v. Drake, 1899, 52 La. Ann. 290. A person can refuse dealing Avith another for any motive whatever, but cannot always influence another person to do the same for any motive, (jraham vs. !St. Charles St. R. Co. et al. 1895, 16 So. 80G. Maine. Rev. St. 1903, c. 124, sec. 9. General statute against intimidation in case of strikes of gas. telegraph, telephone, electric light, electric power or railroad corporations. c. 128. sec. 2U-21. General conspiracy act. The BOYCOTTING 13 statute includes ijrovisions against intimidation, force and threats. There can be a boycott without combination. Such a boy- cott grants a title to recover damages. Davis v. Starrelt, 1903, 97 Me. 5U8. Maryland. Pub. Laws, 1904, art. 37, sec. 34. An act in furtherance of a trade dispute cannot lead to prosecution as a crimdnal conspiracy unless such act be punishable as an offense when committed by an indi- vidual. Yet in My Maryland Lodge, no. 186, International Asso- ciation of Machinists et al. v. Adt, 1905, 59 At. 721, the in- junction of the lower court against threatening with a boy- cott and unfair list was continued. Massachusetts. Rev. St. 1902, c. 106, sec. 11. Gen- eral statute against intimidation. A boycott with intent to injure another's business is an illegal conspiracy. Motive is the deciding element. Martell V. White et al. 1904, 60 N. E. 1085. Michigmi. Comp. Laws, 1897, sec. 11 343. Gen- eral statute against intimidation of employees. A boycott is a form of coercion and is unlawful and en- joinable even though peaceful. Beck v. Ky. Teamsters' Protective Union, 1898, 118 Mich. 497. Minnesota. Rev. Laws, 1905, sec. 1822. General statute against interference with employment and co- ercion of employees. sec. 4869. Unlawful to conspire to interfere with a lawful trade on calling by force, threats or nitimida- tion. sec. 5140. General statute against the use of co- ercion. sec. 5168. A statute against trusts and combina- tions so extended that it may eft'ect trade Iwycotts. 16 BOYCOTTING Compound boycott enjoiued. Leg-ality of unfair list de- pends upon whether it portends injury to the phiintiff so as to make it a boycott. Grey et. al. v. B. T. C. et al. 1903, 97 N. W. 063. Mississippi. Code, 1892, sec. 1006. General con- spiracy act. sec. 1270. It is unlawful for two or more persons who willfully and maliciously combine or conspire to obstruct or impede, by any act or any means of in- timidation, the regular operation of any railroad. Acts, 1898, c. 70, sec. I. General statute against in- timidation of employees. Missouri. Rev. St. 1899, sec. 2155.. General stat- ute ag-ainst intimidation of employees and interference with employment. Boycott circular is not illej2:al. Freedom of speech and press provided for in tlie Missouri constitution. Marx & Hass Jeans Clotliinj? Co. v. Watson et al. 1902, 67 S. W. 391. Primary boycott is legal. Compound boycott is an illegal conspiracy and is enjoinable. Walsh v. Assoc. Master Plumbers of St. Louis et al. 1902, 71 S. W. 455. Montana. Pen. Code, 1895, sec. 320. General con- spiracy act. Application doubtful. Nehra^ska.^ Nevada. Comp. Laws, 1900, isec. 4751- General conspiracy act. Application doubtful. New Hampshire. Pub. St. 1901, c. 266, sec. 12. It is unlawful for any person to interfere or endeavor to interfere in any way in order to injure another in his property or lawful business. 'No statute aeainst boycotting. BOYCOTTING 17 N'czv Jersey. Laws, 1898, c. 235, isec. 37. General conspiracy act. Application doubtful. It is Mctionable to attempt to ruin another's l)usiiiess by iuducinj^ wholesale honses not to sell him goods. Van Horn V. Van Hor,i, 1890, 20 x\t. 485. Trades council is restrained from issuinji: circulars calling on the members of unions and tlie pul)lic to cease buying and advertising in the boycotted paper. • Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 1S94, 101 At. 881. Laws, 1903, c. 257, sec. 6t,. Prohibits interference with railroad operation by strikers. A'czfj Mexico.^ Nevj York. Parker's Crim. and Pen. Code, 1904, c. 168, par. 5. If two or more persons conspire to hin- der another in the exercise of lawful businesp or in doing any lawful act by force, threats or intimidation, they are guilt}^ of a misdemeanor. Interference by outside parties and attempts to enforce a boycott against an employer, come within this statute and common law" as w^ell. Punishable as a misdemeanor and actionable for damages. Old Dominion Steamship Co. V. McKenna et al. 1887, HO Fed. 48. Compound boycott unlawful and liable to damages. Rvan V. Burger & Hower Brewing Co. 1891, 12 N. Y. Sup. (iOO. Refusal to sell to dealers who will not maintain a uniform price is not an actionable boycott. Parks & Sons Co. v. Nat, W, D. A. 1903, 175 N, Y. 1, Laws, 1903, c, 349, It is a misdemeanor to willfully deprive a member of the national guard of liis em- ployment or to obstruct him or his employer in respect to his trade, business or emplacement, because said guard is such a member. North Carolina,. Unfair list not actionable. Court imphes that a boycott would be actionable. Implies — . — ■ I 'No statute against boycotting. 18 JbOHCOTTING that an unfair list is not a boycott. State v. Van Pelt, 1904, 49 S. E. 177. North Dakota. Const. 1889, art. i. Interference with employment is a misdemeanor. Pen. Code, 1899, sec. 7037. Statute prohibiting con- spiracy against workingmen. sec. 7660-2. Any person who, by force, tJireats or intimidation, prevents or endeavors to prevent another from employing any person, or compels a change of the mode of business, an increase or decrease of the number of meni, or the rate of wages or time of ser- vice, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Intimidation of em- ployees is prohibited. Ohio. Union held liable in ease of a general boycott declared and partly carried out. Parker v. Bricklayers' U. No. 1, 189!), 21 Wkly. L. Bui. 223. Union in.iuring business by notices to customers that deal- ing with the employer will result in themselves being boy- cotted is illegal. Moores & Co. v. Bricklayers' U. No. I, et al. 1890, 23 Wkly. L. Bui. 48. Oklahoma. Ann. & Rev. St. 1903, sec. 2643. Statute against intimidation of employees. Oregon. Ann. Code & St. 1902, sec. 1971. Any person who, by force, threats or intimidation, pre- vents or endeavors to prevent the continuance of a man's service or the acceptance of new service by him, (jr who circulates false written or printed statements, or is concerned in such circulation, to prevent a person from employing another, or to compel him vo employ another, to alter hi.3 mode of business, or to limit or in- crease the number of employees, their wages or time of service, is guilty of a misdemeanor. BOYCOTTII^'G 19 A boycott must be " presistant, ag-gressive and virulent " before an injunction is proper and available. Long'shore Printiuj^- Co. v. Howell, 1894, 38 Pac. 547. Pennsylvania. The maintenance of a boycott by the use of injurious and threatenincj acts that caused the plaintiff's business to fall off g-reatly is not protected by tlie law protecting: unions, bvit the parties thereof may be enjoined. Brace v. Evans, 1888, 5 Pa. Co. C. 163. Primarv bovcott is not unlawful coercion. Buchanan x. Barnes, 1894, 28 At. 195. Porto Rico. Pen. Code, 1902, sec. 465. Statute ag^ainst intimidation of employees and interference with employment. Application doubtful. Rhode Island. Gen. LawiS, 1896, c. 278, sec. 8. Gen- eral statute against intimidation of employees. c. 279, sec. 45. It is unlawful for any person to willfully and maliciously or mischievously injure or destroy property, or hinder a lawful busines.". An agreement to withdraw patronage from any dealer selling supplies to others than master plumbers is not evi- dence that plumbers conspired to ruin complainant's busi- ness, Macauley v. Tierney, 1895, 33 At. 1. South Carolina. Laws, 1902. no. 574, sec. 5. A combination "boycotting" any person or corporation for dealing with one not a member of the combination is guilty of conspiracy to defraud. Applicable to trade boycotts only. So'iith Dakota. Pen. Code, 1903. sec. 757-8. Stat- ute against intimidation of employers and employees. Temiessce. Maliciously to threaten to discharge employees if they trade with a third party is not actionable. Threats and in- timidation to break up a man's business is actionable. Payne v. Western Ry. Co. 1888, 13 Tenn. 521. Texa^. Pen. Code, 1895, art. 309, 324. General 20 BOYCOTTWkx statute agaiiist intimidation of employees and interfer- ence with employment. art. 600. Intimidation of employees prohibited. art. 806-807. Intimidation of railroad employees prohibited. Laws, 1903, c. 94, sec. .">, par. 2. Any two or more persons, firms, corporations or associations who agree to boycott any person, firm, corporation or association for buying from or ^selling to any other person, firm, corporation or association, are guilty of a conspiracy in restraint of trade. Such a contract is void. Pen- alty is $50 per day of violation or imprisonment not less than one nor more than ten years. Utah. Laws, 1898, sec. 4156. General conspiracy law. Application doubtful. Laws, 1905, c. 16. Threats to destroy property or do bodily injury in order to prevent any person from en- tering or remaining in the employ of any company, corporation or individual, is a misdemeanor. Vcrmk)nt. Laws. 1902, c. 220, sec. 5041-2. Law against intimidation of employees. Boycotting- is a criminal con.spiiacy undei* the common law. The intimidation .statute i.s mentioned. State v. Stewart, 1887, 59 Vt. 273. "It is clear that everyone has a right to withdraw his own patronage when he pleases, but it is equally clear that he has no riglit to employ threats or intimidation to divert the patronage of another." What one man nuiy do may not always be done bv a combiuMtion. Actual damages gi'anted. Boutwell et al. v."^Marr et al. LS9!), 42 At. 007. Virginia. A Ijoycott warrants a conviction for conspiracy. Crump V. Commonwealth, 1888, 84 Va. 927. Washington. Code, 1902, sec. 6518. Prohibition BOYCOTTING 21 of intimidation in tlic case of coal mines. Application doubtful. A compound boycott was enjoined under the common law. Jensen v. Cooks and Waiters Union of Seattle et al. 1905, 81 Pac. lUOl). West Virginia. Code, 1899, p. 1053, sec. 14. Inter- ference with employment in coal mines probibited. A boycott is a malicious and wanton interference, and is illeg'al and actionable. W. Va. Transpoi-tatiou Co. v. Stand- ard Oil Co. 1902, S.S Am. St. Kep. 895. W. Va. Dig. 1902, vol. 1, p. 063. "No statute by name making boycotting an offense. Whether it is indictable under the statute against conspiracies is a question. The usual remedy is by injunction." Wisconsin. Rev. St. 1898, sec. 4466a. '"An}' two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake together for the purpose of will- fully or maliciously injuring' another in his reputation, trade, business or profcission by any means whatever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, 0/ prevent- ing or hindering another from doing or pei forming any lawful act shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500." sec. 4466c. Prohibition of interference with em- ployment. sec. 4568. Conspiracy. "Any person guilty of a criminal conspiracy at common law shall be pimiohed by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year or by fine not exceeding $500; but no agreement, except to commit a felony upon the person of another or to commit arson or burglary, shall be deemed a conspiracy or punished as such unless some act. beside 22 BOYCOTTING such agreement, be done to effect the object thereof by one Or more of the parties of such agreement.*^ Apphcation doubtful. Wyoming.'' ' No statute against boycottiug. BOYCOTTING 23 SUMMARY LEGALITY OF BOYCOTTS The compound boycott The compound boycott, in which tliird parties are boycotted or threatened with a boycott, is ahiiost uni- versally declared illegal, both under common and statutory law. Courts usually, though not always, have reference to this form of boycott when they use the term "boycott." The primary boycott The primary boycott, in which third parties are not attacked or threatened, is of doubtful legality. ]\Iany courts uphold its legality in the absence of intimida- tion, but others hold the opposite. Generally if these boycotts portend willful and malicious injury to the boycotted party, they are illegal ; if they portend ben- efit to the boycotters, they are legal. This is, how- ever, not a universal rule. The primary trade boycott is the one most frequently upheld by the courts. The unfair list The legality of the unfair list has seldom bten test- ed in the courts. The court of appeals continued an injunction of the lower com-t ag^ainst threatening an unfair list. IMy Maryland lodge, No. ISO, et al. v. Adt. 1905, 50 At. Tl'l. 24 BOYCOTllNG The legality of the unfair list depends upon whether or not it portends injury to the plaintiff so as to make it a boycott. Grey et al. v. Building Trades Council et al. 1903, 97 N. W. 663. It was held that an unfair list is not actionable. State v. Van Pelt, 1904, 49 S. E. 177. Alabama has a statute which declares the unfair list illegal. The fair list The fair list has nowhere in the United States been declared illegal and is not leg-ally a boycott. The union label The union label is legal. The great majority of the stat€5 and territories have statutes expressly legaliz- ing and protecting it. Legally it is not a ijoycott. STATUTES AGAINST BOYCOTTING Picketing Certain states have statutes definitely prohibiting picketing and loitering about to interfere with a law- ful business. These laws affect boycotting inasmuch as they prohibit pract'ces which sometimes accompany boycotts. See Ala. and Col. Conspiracy against workmen In eight states there are laws prohibiting conspir- acy against workmen. These affect some boycotts by reaching a practice which sometimes accompanies a boycott. The general conspiracy laW'S of sonic of the states are of the same nature. See Fla.. Ga., 111., Kan.. Minn.. Miss., N. Y. and N. D. BOYCOTi'ING 25 Intimidation Many states and territories have statutes against the general use of intimidation, force, coercion and vi- olence. While these statutes, under the interpretation of some courts, do not affect all boycotts, they cover at least those in which there is manifest intimidation. They reach some peaceful boycotts, as seme courts hold that a peaceful boycott is in itself a form of co- ercion. Beckv. Ry. Teamsters' Protective Union, 1898, 118 Mich. 497. See intimidation statutes of Ala., Conn., Ga., 111., Ky., Me., Mass., Mich., Minn., Miss., Mo., N. H,, N. Y., N. D., Okla., Ore., P. R., R. I., S. D., Tex., Utah, Vt., and Wash. Interference with employment There are twenty states and territories prohibit- ing interference with employment. These necessarily affect the successful determination of many boycott? to some extent. See Ala., Ark., Conn., Del., Ga., 111., Kan., Ky., La., Miss., Minn., N. Y., N. J.. N. D., Ore., Pa.. R. I.. W. Va., Utah, and Wis. General statutes About twenty states and territories have statutes not containing the term "boycott," but which may be fair- ly interpreted as prohibiting boycotting. See Ala., Conn., Fla., Ga,, Me., Mass., Mich.. Minn., Miss., Mo., N. H., N. Y., Okla., Ore., S. D., N. D., Tex., Utah, Vt., and Wis. 2G BOYCOTTING Prohibition of boycotting in name ' Certain states have statutes which prohibit bo3-cot- ting- as isuch under the name "boycotting:/' See Ala., Col., 111., Ind., S. C.,« and Tex. COURT ixti;rfi;re;nce Common law In numerous states the courts proceed under the common law of conspiracy. This may either result ia punishment against criminal or against civil conspir- acy.'* The common law doctrine depends largely up- on whether or not the intent is willful and malicious. Illegal acts accompanying boycotts Whenever there i.s intimidation, force, coercion, threats or violence, the courts may proceed against the illegal act accompanying- the boycott, and may thus check the boycott to a certain degree even in the absence of both statutory and common law provisions ag-ainst the boycott itself. Injunctions The most frequent remedy of the courts is the in- junction. The compound boycott is generally en- joined when adequate facts are ishown ; the primary boycott is sometimes enjoined when maliciotis intent and combination are shown; the unfair list, whose le- gality is as yet a much disputed matter, was enjoined in :\Iy Md. Lodge, No. 18G. et al. Adt. 1905, 59 At 721. ^S. C. statute applies only to trade boycotts. •See p. 8 for the law of conspiracy. %w/t ■Xm W/ m '>M %m M ■••m m