Cornell University Library 
 HD5466.H88 
 
 Blacklisting 
 
 llilllilllllliilliiiiiiiiiiiiiii[ii||i||||||i||||i|m 
 
 3 1924 002 584 450 
 
 H35 
 
 BLACKLISTING 
 
 m 
 
 GROVER G. HUEBNER 
 
 jesv*^F?"y 
 
 ■ »txfrRSifv 
 
 MADISON, WISCONSIN 
 November, 1906 
 
THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW YORK STATE SCHOOL 
 
 OF 
 
 INDUSTRIAL AND LABOR 
 
 RELATIONS 
 
 AT 
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY 
 
BLACKLISTING 
 
 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 
 
 Madison, Wis. 
 1006 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 KEFEEENCES 
 
 DEFINITIONS 
 
 Page 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 5 
 
 Blacklist 
 
 5 
 
 Clearance card i. 
 
 6 
 
 Whitelist 
 
 LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 Foreign countries 
 
 7 
 
 United States 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 Lbs ALiTX 
 
 Remedies 
 
 19 
 
 20 
 
 20 
 
 False charges 
 
 20 
 
 Interference with employment 
 
 , Truthful statement furnished 
 
 Prohibition of blacklisting in name 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
 21 
 
REFERENCES 
 
 Cooke, F. H. Law of trade and labor combinations. 
 Chicago, 1898. 
 
 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 
 bulletin. Boston. 
 
 f Issued quarterly. Contains current laws, statistics and court de- 
 cisions. 
 
 New York (state) — Dep't of labor. Bulletin. Albany. 
 
 Issued quarterly. Contains current laws, statistics and court de- 
 cisions. 
 
 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- 
 ington, 1900-02. 
 
 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 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 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. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924002584450 
 
BL/i.{jKUt,riNG 
 
 DEFINITIONS 
 
 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 
 Dec. '526. 
 
 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 
 
 Blacklist 
 
 This ii3 the blacklist above defined, and is the prao 
 tice legally known as "blacklisting." 
 
6 BLACKLISTING 
 
 Clearance card 
 
 • 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. 
 
 "Whitelist 
 
 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 
 "negative blacklist." 
 
BLACKLISlI^iG 
 
 LAWS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS 
 
 Foreign countries 
 
 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- 
 lists. 
 
 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 
 
8 BLACKLISTING 
 
 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- 
 pressed. 
 
 TJnited States 
 
 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. 
 
BLAGKLISTIl^G 9 
 
 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. 
 
 Arizona.^ 
 , Arkansas* 
 
 California.'^ 
 
 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" 
 
 Dela-mwe.^ 
 
 Florida. Acts, 1893, c. 4144, sec. i. General stat- 
 ute prohibiting conspiracy against workingmen, to 
 prevent employment. 
 
 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. 
 
10 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- 
 arate divisions. 
 
 Georgia. Code, 1895, sec. 119. Statute prohibit- 
 ing organization to prevent the employment of any 
 person. 
 
 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. 
 
 Jdaho.^ 
 
 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 
 
BLACKLISTING 11 
 
 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- 
 
12 BLACELISTINO- 
 
 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. 
 
 Kentucky. 
 
 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. 
 
 Louisiana}'^ 
 
 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 
 $500. 
 
 Maryland.^^ 
 
 1° See Pi'otecfinn of wnionx, p. 20 
 1' No statutes against blacklisting. 
 ^^ No statutes against blacklisting. 
 
BLACj^LISTINO 13 
 
 Massachtisetts.^^ 
 
 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 
 both. 
 
 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. ' 
 
 Nebraska. 
 
 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 
 
BLACKLISTING 15 
 
 c. 266, sec. 12. General statute against intimidation 
 of employees and interference with workman. 
 
 Ncn.' Jersey." 
 
 Xezv Mexico}^ 
 
 Xcic York}" 
 
 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. 
 578. 
 
 ; North Carolina.^'' 
 
 North Ddkotck. Const, art. i, sec. 23. ^^ny malic- 
 ious interference with the obtaining of employment is 
 a misdemeanor. 
 
 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 
 discharge.. 
 
 Failure to furnish such statement does not make the com- 
 pany liable. Crall v. Toll. & 0. C. Ry. Co. 1893, 7 C. C. 
 132. 
 
 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 
 
16 BLACKLIBTIISIG 
 
 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. 
 
 Pennsylvama.^^ 
 
 Porto Rico.^* 
 
 Rhode Island. Gen. Laws, 1896, c. 279, sec. 45. 
 General statute against interference with !av>'ful em- 
 ployment. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 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. 
 
 Tennessee.^^ 
 
 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. 
 
BLAOKLISTING 11 
 
 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- 
 ployer.2^ 
 
 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. 
 
 Vermont." 
 
 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 
 upon application. 
 
 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. 
 
 West Virginia.^ 
 
 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 
 
18 BLAGKLlisTING 
 
 "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. 
 Wyommg.^" 
 
 '° No statute against blacklisting. 
 
BLACKLISTI^^ 19 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 LEGALITY 
 
 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- 
 mined. 
 
 =1 See p. 6. 
 
20 BLACKLISTI^a 
 
 REMEDIES 
 
 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. 
 
 False charges 
 
 Arkansas and Missouri have statutes prohibiting- 
 the making of false charges against railroad em- 
 , ployees. 
 
 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,. 
 sec. 1822. 
 
 »s Unconstitutional. Brick & Title Co. y. Perry, 1904, 76 P. 848. 
 
 " Unconstitutional. State v. Kreutzberg, 1902, 90 N. W. 1098, 
 
 V^K^\ 
 
hIjACKLISU IIJG 21 
 
 Interference with employment 
 
 Eight states have general statutes against interfer- 
 ence with employment, which may be interpreted to 
 prohibit blacklisting. 
 
 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- 
 ployee. 
 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 
 
 blacklisting. 
 
 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- 
 ney thereof. 
 
 " Railroads, companies, partnerships or corporations. 
 
 " Corporations or companies or agent or employee thereof. Ihe general 
 statute applies to two or more corporations or employers. 
 
 IZ'if-t^ 
 
22 BLAOKLISTINO 
 
 Ten of these statutes prohibit the blacklisting of 
 
 discharged ehiployees. 
 
 See Fla., Ga., Ind.,*"* Iowa, Kan., Mont., Ore., Nev., Tex. 
 and Va. 
 
 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 
 Wis. 
 
 •" Provision applyiag to ea:pIoyees voluntarily leaving is unconstitu- 
 tional. 
 
 *° In Georgia this was compulsory bat was declared unconstitutional. 
 Wallace v, Georgia N. Ey. Co. 1894, 22 S. E. 579. 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD 5466.H88 
 
 Blacklisting 
 
 3 1924 002 584 450