Boycotting

A combination between persons to suspend or discontinue dealings or patronage with another person or persons because of refusal to comply with a request made of him or them. The purpose is to constrain acquiescence or to force submission on the part of the individual who, by noncompliance with the demand, has rendered himself obnoxious to the immediate parties, and, perhaps, to their personal and fraternal associates. The persons directly so confederating have hitherto as a class been employees as against either their own employer or the employer of others in a like business, or else of retail dealers as against a particular manufacturer or wholesale dealer. The means employed have been the withdrawal of the custom and good-will in business of the immediate parties and of such others as they could influence. The word may refer to the fact of combining or to the resolution as executed. The practice takes its name from one Boycott, an agent for Lord Earne on certain estates in the western part of Ireland. Having lost favor with the tenants, from evictions and other harsh treatment, they agreed not to work for him, and the tradesmen of the community not to deal with him.2 "The word in itself implies a threat. In popular acceptation it is an organized effort to exclude a person from business relations with others by persuasion, intimidation and other acts which tend to violence, and thereby coerce him, through fear of resulting injury, to submit to dictation in the management of his affairs."

— 2 ' Salt Company v. East Saginaw, 13 Wall. 379 (18711, Bradley, J. See also Commissioners v. Woodstock Any such combination is, and ever has been, at common law, a conspiracy, the unlawfulness consisting in the agreement for the concerted action; and aptly illustrates the well-settled principle that two or more peisons may not combine to do toward another what one individual of his own accord might not xmlawf ully do. "The doctrine to be gathered from the cases seems to be that a conspiracy of this kind ceases to be legal when the means designed. are characterized by force, threats, intimidation, molestation, improper interference, or compxdsion." i It is against the criminal law for a number of men to band together for the purpose, through the power of combination, of injuring the business of another, by parading before his door, by placarding themselves with the word " boycott," by advising passers-by not to patronize the establishment, by distributing circulars filled with accusations and justifying the boycott, and by other devices calculated to induce the public to keep away from the alleged wrong-doer, — provided that the persons so engaged use force, threats, or intimidation. To (constitute intimidation it is not necessary that there should be an overt act of violence or any direct threat by word of mouth; it is enough if the attitude of the accused was intimidating; and this may be shown by their numbers, methods, placards, circulars, and other devices. If the attitude and method is such as to deter any of the complainant's customers, even the most timid, from entering his place of business, or to inspire any portion of the general public with a sense 6t danger in ignoring their appeals, there is intimidation. In New York procuring money from another with his consent obtained by fear, induced by threat to do or to continue an injury to his property, constitutes " extortion; " and every person present when the money, or the agreement under which it was paid, is obtained, and who aids and abets the person to whom it is paid, by personal participation or by silently acquiescing in the threats made by his associates speaking in their joint behalf, is liable as a principal, and he need not be present when the money is actually received.^ Associations have no more right to inflict injury upon others than have individuals. All combinations and associations designed to coerce workmen to become members or to interfere with, obstruct, vex or annoy them in working or in obtaining work because they are not members, or to induce them to become members;

— or designed to prevent employers from making a just discrimination in the wages paid tcJ the skillful and the unskillful, the diligent and the lazy, theef Bcient and the inefacient; and all associations designed to interfere with the perfect freedom of employers in the proper management of their lawful business, or to dictate the terms upon which their gheny Co., Pa. ( Apiil 21, 1838), Slagle, J.: 83 Pitts. Leg. J. 339, 403. See "England under Gladstone," Mc Carthy. 1 10 Va. Law J. 709 (Sept., 1880), Atkins, J., in Crump V. Commonwealth. Af Brmed, May 24, 1888. = People V. Wilzig, 4 N.-Y. Cr. R. 403 (O. & T. N. Y. Co., June, July, 1886), Barrt Stt, J., Sometimes called business shall be conducted by means o£ threats o£ injury or loss, by interference with thair property or traffic, or with their lawful employment of other persons, or designed to abridge any of those rights,— are ■pro tanto illegal combinations; and all acts done ill furtherance of such intentions by such meaiis and accompanied by damage are actionable.^ An act of Wisconsin, approved April 2, 1887 (Laws, oh. 2S7), provides that: Any two or more persons who shall combine, associate, agree, mutually undertake, or concert together for the purpose of willfully or maliciously injm'ing another in his reputation, trade, business or profession, by any means whatever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful act, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not more than one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.^ See further Combination, 2; Conspiracy; Injury, Irreparable; Strike, 2. Compare Black-listing. See also Assembly. Unlawful; Riot. BRAKEMAJS". See Admission, 2; Negligence.