Of the group of cases which grew out of the revival of trade union activity in the twenties, the first, a case against Philadelphia master shoemakers, was decided in 1821, and the judge held that it was lawful for the masters, who had recently been forced by employes to a wage increase, to combine in order to restore wages to their “natural level.”  But he also held that had the employers combined to depress wages of journeymen below the level fixed by free competition, it would have been criminal.

Another Pennsylvania case resulted from a strike by Philadelphia tailors in 1827 to secure the reinstatement of six discharged members.  As in previous cases the court rejected the plea that a combination to raise wages was illegal, and directed the attention of the jury to the question of intimidation and coercion, especially as it affected third parties.  The defendants were found guilty.

In a third, a New York hatters’ case of 1823, the charge of combining to raise wages was entirely absent from the indictment.  The issue turned squarely on the question of conspiring to injure others by coercion and intimidation.  The hatters were adjudged guilty of combining to deprive a non-union workman of his livelihood.

The revival of trade unionism in the middle of the thirties brought in, as we saw, another crop of court cases.

In 1829 New York State had made “conspiracy to commit any act injurious to public morals or to trade or commerce” a statutory offence, thus reenforcing the existing common law.  In 1835 the shoemakers of Geneva struck to enforce the closed shop against a workman who persisted in working below the union rate.  The indictment went no further than charging this offence.  The journeymen were convicted in a lower court and appealed to the Supreme Court of the State.  Chief Justice Savage, in his decision condemning the journeymen, broadened the charge to include a conspiracy to raise wages and condemned both as “injurious to trade or commerce” and thus expressly covered by statute.

The far-reaching effects of this decision came clearly to light in a tailor’s case the next year.  The journeymen were charged with practising intimidation and violence, while picketing their employers’ shops during a prolonged strike against a reduction in wages.  Judge Edwards, the trial judge, in his charge to the jury, stigmatized the tailors’ society as an illegal combination, largely basing himself upon Judge Savage’s decision.  The jury handed in a verdict of guilty, but recommended mercy.  The judge fined the president of the society $150, one journeyman $100, and the others $50 each.  The fines were immediately paid with the aid of a collection taken up in court.

The decisions produced a violent reaction among the workingmen.  They held a mass-meeting in City Hall Park, with an estimated attendance of 27,000, burned Judge Savage and Judge Edwards in effigy, and resolved to call a state convention to form a workingmen’s party.