Cornell University Library
3 1924 002 584 450
GROVER G. HUEBNER
NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL
INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR
GROVER G. HUEBNER
dgiiPARATivE Legislation Bulletin— No 10— November, 1906
Prepared with the co-operation of the Political Science
Department of the University of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Freei Libbabt Commission
LIGISLATITB BBrEBBNCS DBP'T
Clearance card i.
LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Interference with employment
, Truthful statement furnished
Prohibition of blacklisting in name
Cooke, F. H. Law of trade and labor combinations.
Numerous laws and court decisions stated and criticised .
Eddy, A. J. Law of combinations act. Chicago, 1901.
Numerous laws and court decisions stated and criticised.
Great Britain — Royal commission on trade disputes and
combinations. Report. London, 1906. (Parliament,
Sessional papers, 1906, Cd. 2825, 2826)
Contains statement of British law and court decisions.
Massachusetts — Bureau of statistics of labor. Labor
f Issued quarterly. Contains current laws, statistics and court de-
New York (state) — Dep't of labor. Bulletin. Albany.
Issued quarterly. Contains current laws, statistics and court de-
Stimson, F. J. Handbook to the labor law of the U. S.
New York, 1896.
statement and criticism of laws and court decisions.
U. S.— Labor, Bureau of. Bulletin. Washington.
Issued bi-monthly. Gives current laws and court decisions.
U. S.— Labor, Bureau of. Labor laws of U. S. Special re-
port, vol. 10. Washington, 1904.
Includes laws in force at close of 1903.
U. 8. -Industrial commission. Report, vols. 5, 16, 19. Wash-
Vol.5. American blacklisting laws, p. Ul.
Vol. 16. Foreign blacklisting laws, p. 171.
Vol. 19. General explanation of the problem, p. 892-952.
PROPERTY OF LIBRARY /4.<?<//
NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL
INOUSTF.iAL AND LA80R REUTIONS
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
Ohio. A "blacklist" is defined to be a list of pei--
sons marked out for special avoidance;, antagonism,
and enmity on the part of those who prepare the list'
or those among whom it is intended to circulate; but
it is most usually resorted to by combined VraployeriB
who exchange lists of their employees who go on
strikes, with the agreement that none of them will
employ the workmen whose names are on the lists.
Mattison v,. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. 1895, 3 Ohio
Texas. Acts, 1901, c. 99., sec. 4. "He is guilty of
blacklisting who places, or causes to be placed, the
name of any discharged employee, or any employee
v/ho has voluntarily left the service of any bdividual^
firm, company, or corpoiration on any book or list or
publishes it in any newspaper, periodical, letter or cir-
cular, with the intent to prevent said employee from-
securing employment of any kind with any other per-
son, firm, corporation or company, either in a public
or private capacity."
FORMS OF BLACKLISTING
This ii3 the blacklist above defined, and is the prao
tice legally known as "blacklisting."
• This is a written statement given to employees upon
leaving employment and is sometimes used as a means
of .blacklisting. The instrument, as such, is not rec-
ijgnized as blacklisting by the courts.
This term refers tO' the practice of having employ-
-er's associations register the employees of all the
members and secure a history of each one. The his-
tory is sent to the members when they desire to hire
additional emloyees. It is sometimes known as the
LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS
England. Conspiracy & Protection of Property
Act. 38 and 39 Vic. c. 86. The common law is so
modified that a combination to do, or procure to be
done, any act in contemplation or furtherance of a
trade dispute between employers and workmen is not
indictable as a conspiracy if such act when committed
by one person is not a crime punishable by imprison-
ment. COuirts have held that this does not prevent
punishment as a civil conspiracy (Qiiinn v. Leathern,
1901, 17 T. L. R. 749) With this modification, Eng-
land follows the common law in dealing with black-
Appeal dismissed because there was no other motive than
seie interest. Jenkinson v. Neild, 1892, 8 T. L. R. 540.
Damages granted because the purpose was to injure. In-
junction made permanent. Trollope v. London Bld'g Trades
Fed. 1895, 72 L. T. 342.
The legality of the blacklist depends upon its motive.
Quinn V. Leathern, 1901, 17 T. L. R. 749; Bulock v. St.
Anne's Master Builders, 1902, 19 T. L. R. 27.
France. In 1889 the obligatory features of the cer-
tificate of employment were suppressed. By art. 3,
Laws, 1889, all persons, with the exception af those
in a few industries, may, at the end of their services,
exact a certificate containing exclusively the date of
their coming and going and the kind of work at which
they have been employed.
Germany.^ In Germany both the courts and stat-
ute law declare blacklisting illegal. Upon cessation
of employment the employer is required to give the
workman a certificate of dismissal. There is a heavy
penalty against placing any signs or marks nn the cer-
tificates which convey knowledge not therein ex-
Comp. St. 1 90 1. Every employer engaged in inter-
state or foreign transportation, except masters of ves-
sels as defined in sec. 4612 Rev. St. of U. S. "who.
shall, after having discharged an employee, attempt
or conspire to prevent such employee from obtaining
employment, or who shall, after the quitting of an em-
ployee, attempt or conspire to pervent such employee
from obtaining employment, is hereby declared to be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof
in any court of the United States of competent juris-
diction in the district in which such offense was com-
mitted, shall be punished for each offense by a fine of
not less than $100 and not more than $1,000."
Alabama. Code, 1897,. c. 192, sec. 5511. Statute
prohibiting interference with employment.
Acts, 1903, no. 3291, sec. 5. It is unlawful for any
person', firm or corporation to maintain a 'blacklist"
' Authority of the consul of Fermany at Philadelphia, Oct., 1906. Also
see U. S. Ind. Com. Ept. yol. 16, p. 171.
or to notify any other firm or corporation that any
person is blacklisted, or to use any similar means to
prevent employment. Fine not less than $50 nor more
than $500, or imprisonment not over sixty da}'s.
Colorado.^ Acts, 1905, g. 79, sec. 4. It is a mis-
demeanor for any employer to maintain a "blacklist"
or notify other employers that any workman is black-
listed in order to prevent his employment. It is not
unlawful to make a true statement upon application
of the employee or the prospective employer. It is
not unlawful to maintain or publish a list as to per-
sons' financial standing. Penalty is fine not less than
$10 nor more than $250, or imprisonment not longer
than sixty days, or both.
Connecticut.'' Gen. St. 1902, sec. 1299. "Every
employer who 'blacklists' an employee with the intent
to prevent him from, procuring other employment is to
be fined not more than $200"
Florida. Acts, 1893, c. 4144, sec. i. General stat-
ute prohibiting conspiracy against workingmen, to
Acts, 1893, c. 4207, sec. 1-5. No railroad company
or other corporation or any person, agent or employee
of such corporation is to prevent the employriient of a
3 No statute against blacklisting.
* See statute against Falne charges, p. 20
*See Prolertinn of union n. p. 20
*See Protfction of unions, p. 20
'' See Protection of unions, p. 20
'No statute against blacklisting.
discharged employee, by any work, writing, sign or
other means. Fine not less than $ioo nor more than
$5oOi; and damages are also to be granted. A truth-
ful statement may be made. If a truthful statement
of the cause of discharge is not furnished within ten
days upon request of the discharged employee, then
no such statement can be made thereafter. A com-
pany having received a "blacklist" is to furnish the
same to the employee upon request. The law is to
apply to railroad companies or corporations under the
same general management or contract, but Imving sep-
Georgia. Code, 1895, sec. 119. Statute prohibit-
ing organization to prevent the employment of any
Code, 1895, sec. 124. Conspiracy to prevent em-
ployment is a misdemieanor.
Code, 1895, sec. 1873. Blacklisting is prohibited in
name, in case of corporations, or agents or employees
thereof. A truthful (Statement of cause of discharge
is to be furnished upon request.
An act to require certain corporations to give to their dis-
charged employees or agents the cause of removal or dis-
charge is unconstitutional. Wallace v. Ga. N. Ry. Co.
1894, 22 S. E. 579.
A blacklist is declared unlawful -when a false report is
circulated. Willis v. iMuscagee Co. 1904, 48 S. E. 177.
Illinms. Rev. St. 1905, c. 38, sec. 46. If any two
or more persons conspire together, or the officers or
executive committee of any society, oganization or
corporation issue or utter any circular or edict as the
* See Protection of unions^ p. 20
action or instruction to its members, or any otiier per-
sons, societies, organizations or corporations for the
purpose of establishing a so-called boycott or black-
ist, or distribute any written or printed notice, with
the fraudulent or malicious intent wrongfully and
wickedly to injure the person, character, business, em-
ployment or property of another. . .they are guilty
of a conspiracy. Penalty is imprisonment in the
penitentiary not exceeding five years or fine not ex-
ceeding $2,000, or both.
The instruments of railroads known as "clearance cards"
are not illegal. McDonald v. I. C. R. Co. 1900, 58 N. E. 463.
Indiana. Ann. St. i9oi, sec. 7076. Prevention of
employment is unlawful.
sec.7077. It is unlawful for any railroad company
or other company, partnership or corporation, to
"blacklist" discharged employees, or by work, writing
or other means to prevent employment of any em-
ployee. Compensatory and exemplary damages are to
be granted. If the employer does not furnish a true
statement upon request of the employee, no such
statement can be made thereafter at any time.
This statute ajjplies only to discharged employees. The
section relative to employees voluntarily leaving employ-
ment is unconstitutional, as it is not expressed in the title of
the act. Wabash E. Co. v. Young, 1904, 69 N. E. 1003.
Iowa. Code, 1897, Supp. 1902, sec. 5027-28. No
person, agent, company or corfK>ration can by word or
writing prevent discharged employees from securing
employment. Truthful statement may be furnished
upon request. Penalty is fine not less than $100 nor
more than $500. Damages are granted. Tn case of
agents of any railroad company, partnership or cor-
poration, treble damages are granted if the em-
ployee is prevented from obtaining employment.
Kansas}" Gen. st. 1905, sec' 4026-30. No em-
ployer may by word, sign or writing of any kind what-
soever attempt to prevent the employment of a dis-
charged employee. A true istatement of the cause of
■disclnarge is, however, to be furnished upon request of
the employee. Penalty is fine of $100 for each of-
fense and thirty days imprisonment. Damages equal
to three times the sum of the injury and reasonable
attorney's fees are granted in addition.
Railroads are liable to discharged employees for false entry
upon records when such records are in any way communi-
cated to other railroads, and the employees have thereby
been prevented from obtaining employment. There must
be an overt act. Hundly v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 1898,
48 N. W. 429.
Blacklisting does not make a person liable unless there is
coercion or deception. Baker v. Sun Life Insurance Co.
1901, 64 S. W. 967.
Maine. ' Rev. St. 1903, c. 127, sec. 21. Any em-
ployer, employee, or other person, who' by threats of
injury, intimidation or force, alone or in combination
•with others, prevents any person from' entering into,
continuing in or leaving the employment of any person,
firm or corporation, is to be punished by imprisonment
for not more than two years, or by fine not exceeding
1° See Pi'otecfinn of wnionx, p. 20
1' No statutes against blacklisting.
^^ No statutes against blacklisting.
Employer sent names of strikers to other like corpora-
"tions and an agreement was made not to employ them un-
less they returned to the defendant at his wages. Held
entitled to relief in equity. Worthington v. Waring,
1892, 34 Am. St. E. 294.
Michigan. Comp. Laws, 1897, c. 315, sec. 11343.
General statute against intimidation, providing that
no person shall in any way, without legal authority,
molest any workman in the quiet and peaceful pur-
suit of his lawful avocation.
Minnesota.^* Gen. Laws, 1905,, sec. 5097. It is a
misdemeanor for two or more corporations 'or em-
ployers to agree to combine or confer together to pre-
vent a man's employment by circulating blacklists or by
any means. Unlawful for a corporation or company,
or agent or employee thereof to blacklist discharged
employees, or by word or writing hinder an employee
from obtaining employment who liais voluntarily left
service. (Act was enacted in 1895, c. 174, sec. 1-6 )
This act is constitutional. State ex rel. Sehaffer v. Jus-
tus, 1902, 88 N. W. 759.
Mississippi. Ann. Code, 1892, isec. 1006, no. 5,
General statute against interference with employment
and conspiracy against workmen. Application to
blacklisting is doubtful.
Misssouri.^^ Rev. St. 1899, sec. 2166. Every per-
son who sends, delivers, makes, or causes to be made,
sent or delivered, or who parts with any paper, letter,
or writing, signed or unsigned, or publishes a false
statement, to prevent the employment of a person, or
" See Protection of unions, p. 20
1* See Protection of uninnx, p. 20
'' See False charges, p. 20
14 BLAGKLI8TII, cr
who "blacklists" a person in any way to prevent em-
ployment or to cause discharge, is guilty of a misde-
meanor. Fine not over $1,000 or imprisonment, or
Montana. Ann. Code, 1895, sec. 3390-92. "Black-
listing" is a penal offense and punishable as sucli.
Damages are granted. A truthful statement is not
prohibited. If such statement is not furnished upon
request of the employee, it cannot be furnished there-
after to any person.
Pen. Code, sec. 656. Violation of the above istatute-
is a misdemeanor. '
A blacklist is a conspiracy and incluaes an abstract of de-^
linquent debtors sent by a oommercial association to other
merchants branding the debtors as unworthy of credit. Dam-
ages are granted. Master v. Lee, 1896, 39 Neb. 574.
Nevada.^^ Comp. Laws^ 1900, sec. 4982. Any per-
son, association, company, or corporation or agent,
preventing any employee from getting employment is .
guilty of a misdemeanor.
Acts, 1905, c. 150, sec. 1-3. Any corporation, as-
sociation, company, or individual who "blacklists," or
publishes or causes' to be blacklisted any difcharged
employee with intent tO' prevent his employment, is
guilty of a misdemeanor. Fine not less than $50 nor
more than $250, or imprisonment not less than thirty
nor more than ninety days, or both. A truthful state-
ment is permitted on application. Such statement
cannot be used as cause for a libel suit.
New Hampshire. Rev. St. and Seas. Laws, 1901,
'" See Protection of unions, p. 20
c. 266, sec. 12. General statute against intimidation
of employees and interference with workman.
A maaufaoturer in contract with -wholesale dealers of med-
icines to handle their goods at uniform prices supplied the
dealers with a list of those who cut prices. This is not un-
lawful. Park & Sons Co. v. N. W. D. A. 96 Am. St. Rep.
; North Carolina.^''
North Ddkotck. Const, art. i, sec. 23. ^^ny malic-
ious interference with the obtaining of employment is
art. 17, sec. 212. "The exchange of blacklists be-
tween corporations shall be prohibited.
Rev. Code, 1899, sec. 7041-2,. It is a misdemeanoi
for any person, corporation or agent thereof to ma-
liciously interfere with the obtaining or holding of
employment. It is a misdemeanor to exchange or
furnish a "blacklist."
Ohio.^'^ Ann. St. 5th ed. pt. 2, Civ. Code, sec.
3365-20. Railroads are to furnish discharged em-
ployees with a w:ritten statement of the cause of the
Failure to furnish such statement does not make the com-
pany liable. Crall v. Toll. & 0. C. Ry. Co. 1893, 7 C. C.
Damages Ure granted in case of a combination between
railroads to maliciously prevenfemployment. Mattison v.
Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1895, 3 Ohio, Dec. 526.
^' See Protection of wnionn^ p. 20
" No statute against blacklisting.
^" See Protection of uvioni*^ p. 20
2»No statute against blacklisting.
"' See Protection of unions, p. 20
Oklahoma. Rev; Ann. St. 1903, sec. 2658-9. It is
a misdemeanor for any comipany, corporation or indi-
vidual to "blacklist," or require a letter of relinquish-
ment from any employee, with, the intent to prevent
his further employment. Fine not less than $100 nor
more than $500. Damages are to' be grantci.
Oregon.^ Acts, 1903, p. 137, sec. 1. It is a misde-
meanor for any corporation, company or individual to
"blacklist" or publish any blacklist to prevent the em-
ployment of a discharged employee. Fine not less
than $50 nor more than $250, or imprisonment not
less than thirty nor more than ninety days, or both.
Rhode Island. Gen. Laws, 1896, c. 279, sec. 45.
General statute against interference with !av>'ful em-
Employees could not collect, as they were receiving
wages from their union while on strike. Bradley v. Pier-
son, 1892, 24 At. E. 85.
South Dakota. Rev. St. 1903, Pen. Code, sec. 758.
Statute against^ interference with employment which
may be interpreted to cover blacklisting.
Texas. Acts, 1901, c. 99, sec. 1-4. It is a misde-
meanor for any corporation, company, or individual to
"blacklist" or cause to be blacklisted any discharged em-
ployee, wiilth the intent of preventing his obtaining eni-
''''See Protection of untonii , p. 20
^^See Protection of unions , p. 20
'^^See Pi'ofection or unionn, p. 20
2^ No statute against blacklisting.
ploymerit. Fine not less than $^o nor more than $250,
or imprisonment not less than thirty nor more than
ninety days, or both. True statement may be made
upon application of the employee or prospective em-
Utah. Const, art. 12, sec. 19. Any malicious inter^
ference with employment of any employee is a crime.
Rev. St- 1898, sec. 1340-41. Any company, corpor-
ation or individual who '"blacklists" or cause? to be
blacklisted any employee to prevent his employment is
guilty of a felony. Fine not less than $500 nor more
than $1,000 and imprisonment in state prison not less
than sixty days nor more than one year.
Virginia. Code, 1904, sec. 3657c. It is a misde-
meanor for any corporation, rasjiufacturer, manufac-
turing company, cr agent thereof, -to maliciously and
willfully prevent, or attempt to prevent by word or
writing, directly or indirectly, the employment of a
discharged employee. Fine not less tlian $100 nor
more thian$500. A truthful statement may be made
Washington. Code, 1902, sec. 5992. "Blacklist-
ing" is prohibited in terms. It is a misdemeanor and
is punishable by fine of not less than $100 nor more
than $1,000, or imprisonment for not less than ninety
days nor more than one year, or both.
Wisconsin.^'' Rev. St. 1898, c. 182, sec. 4466b.
»" See p. 16 for definition in Texas Law.
" No statute, against blacklisting.
'» No statute against blaclclisting.
'"See Protection of unions, p. 20
"Any two or more persons, whether members of a
partnership or company or stockholders in a corpora-
tion, who are employers of labor, who shall combine or
agroe to combine for the purpose of preventing any
person seeking employment from obtaining the same,
or for the purpose of procuring or causing the dis-
charge of any employee by threats, promises, circulat-
ing blacklists or causing the same to be circulated,- or
who shall, after having discharged any employee, pre-
vent or attempt to prevent such employee from ob-
taining employment with any other person, partner-
ship, company or corporation by the means of the
aforesaid, or shall authorize, permit or allow any of
his or their agents to blacklist any discharged em-
ployee or any employee who has voluntarily left the
service of his employer, or circulate a blacklist of such
employee to prevent his obtaining employment under
any other employer, or shall coerce or compel any per-
son to enter into an agreement not to unite with or be-
come a member of any labor organization as a con-
dition of his securing employment or continuing there-
in, shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500
nor less than $100, which fine shall be paid into the
state treasury for tjie benefit of the school fund."
Truthful statement may be made upon application of
the employee, the prospctive employer or any bonds-
man or surity. Such information cannot be given
with intent to blacklist or prevent employment. An
employer may keep a record for his own information.
'° No statute against blacklisting.
Though there are more statutes directly aimed at
"blacklisting than at boycotting, the courts do not
recognize the illegality of blacklisting as clearly. In
the absence of special statutes, the common law doc-
trine of malicious and willful intent to do injury may
be applied. Wherever there is a conspiracy, the com-
mon law of civil conspiracy may be applied as it is in
England,^^ or even extended so as to demand punish-
ment as a criminal conspiracy. American courts do
not, however, uniformly adopt this rnle. Especially
is this true in the case of railroad clearance cards.
Courts have held them to be a lawful instrument.
McDonald v. 111. C. E. Co. 58 N. E. 463; C. C. C. & St. L
Ry. Co. V. Jenkins, 1898, 174 111. 398.
• The legality of the "whitelist" has not been deter-
=1 See p. 6.
Protection of unions"^
Seventeen states and territories and the federal gov-
ernmeint have statutes prohibiting the exaction from
workmen of agreements that they will not be mem-
bers of unions. These statutes strike at one of. the
important causes of blacklisting.
Compare the laws of:
Cal. Pen. Code, 1903, sec. 679.
Col. Acts, 1897, C.50, sec. 1-2.
Conn. Gen. St. 1902, c. 82, sec. 1297.
Idaho Codes, 1901, sec. 4858-9.
111. Eev. St. 1905, c. 38, sec. 46.
Ind. Ann. St. 1901, sec. 2302.
Kan. Gen. St. 1905, sec. 4039.52
Mass. Rev. Laws, 1902, o. 106, sec. 12.
Minn. Rev. Laws, 1905, sec. 5097.
Nev. Acts, 1903, c. Ill, sec. 1-2.
N. J. Gen. 8t, 1895, p. 1905, sec. 45-47.
N. Y. Parker's Crim. & Pen. Code, sec. 171a.
Ohio Ann. St. pt. 2, Civ. Code, see. 3364-68.
Ore. Acts, 1903, c. 137, sec. 1.
Pa. Dig. 1893-1903, p. 851, sec. 5.
P. R. St. & Code, 1902, sec. 553.
Wis., Rev. St. 1898, c. 182, sec. 4466."
U. S. Comp. St. 1901, Title, 56o, sec. 10.
Arkansas and Missouri have statutes prohibiting-
the making of false charges against railroad em-
Ark. Dig. 1904, sec. 6655. Mo. Rev. St .1899, sec. 2165.
^' These laws are difficult to enforce and sometimes declared unconsti-
tutional. The Mo. law was declared unconstitutional in State v. Julow,.
1895, 29 Lawyers Eep. Ann. 257.
Lawsof a similar nature are those preventing discbarge or hindrance
in emDlojiment because of having engaged in a strike. Minn. St. 1905,.
»s Unconstitutional. Brick & Title Co. y. Perry, 1904, 76 P. 848.
" Unconstitutional. State v. Kreutzberg, 1902, 90 N. W. 1098,
hIjACKLISU IIJG 21
Interference with employment
Eight states have general statutes against interfer-
ence with employment, which may be interpreted to
See Ala., Ga., Ind., Maine, Mass., N. H., R. I., and S. D.
' Florida and Mississippi have statutes of this nature
prohibiting conspiracy against workmen.
Truthful statement furnished
Though without a blacklisting law, Ohio provides
that, upon application, railroads must furnish a truth-
ful statement of the cause of the discharge to the em-
Prohibition of blacklisting in name^'*
Twenty-one states and territories have enacted stat-
utes, prohibiting blacklisting, as such under the
term blacklisting. ,
See Ala., Col., Conn., Pla., Ga., 111., Ind., Iowa, Kan.,
Minn., Mo., Mont., Nev., N. D., Okla., Ore., Tex., Utah,
Va., Wash, and Wis.
Of these, fourteen extend the statutes to cover "any
person" guilty of blacklisting.
See Ala., Col., Conn., Kan., Mo., Mont., Nev., Iowa,
Okla.,'' Va., Ore., Tex., Utah, and Wash.
Two statutes apply only to two or more persons
See 111., Wis.
Five apply to railroads and other corporations.
See Ind.", Pla., Ga., N. D., Minn.'"
" For Federal law see p. 8
" Corporations, mabufactnrers, manufacturing 003. or agent or attor-
" Railroads, companies, partnerships or corporations.
" Corporations or companies or agent or employee thereof. Ihe general
statute applies to two or more corporations or employers.
Ten of these statutes prohibit the blacklisting of
See Fla., Ga., Ind.,*"* Iowa, Kan., Mont., Ore., Nev., Tex.
Eleven of them apply to any employee.
See Ala., Col., Conn., 111., Minn., Mo., N. D., Okla-
Utaji., Wash., Wis.
Nine*" permit the making of truthful statements
upon application of the proper parties.
See Col., Fla., Ind., Iowa, Kan., Mont., Nov., Tex., and
•" Provision applyiag to ea:pIoyees voluntarily leaving is unconstitu-
*° In Georgia this was compulsory bat was declared unconstitutional.
Wallace v, Georgia N. Ey. Co. 1894, 22 S. E. 579.
Cornell University Library
3 1924 002 584 450