Commonwealth v. Pullis

Commonwealth v. Pullis, 3 Doc. Hist. 59 (1806) was a US labor law case, and the first reported case arising from a labor strike in the United States. It decided that striking workers were illegal conspirators.[1][2]

Facts

In 1794 Philadelphia shoemakers organized the "Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers" (the name came from the cordovan leather they worked with) in an effort to secure stable wages. Over the next decade, the union secured some wage increases. Through 1804, the Journeymen received moderate wage increases. In 1805 the union struck for higher wages. The strike collapsed after the union leaders were indicted for the crime of conspiracy.

Trial

The jury trial was in the Philadelphia Mayor’s Court, which was not a court of record. The only report historians have today consists of shorthand notes by Thomas Lloyd, a young Jeffersonian printer who later published the proceedings.[2]

Eight leaders of the Federal Society of Journeymen Cordwainers were brought to trial and accused of conspiring to increase their pay rates after leading an unsuccessful strike for higher wages. The employers, not the government, paid the prosecution's expenses. The arguments in Pullis promoted the idea '"that workers were transitory, irresponsible, and dangerous", and were, thus, properly the subject of judicial control.[3]

Judgment

After a three-day trial, the jury found the defendants guilty of "a combination to raise their wages". The union of Philadelphia Journeymen Shoemakers was convicted of and bankrupted by charges of criminal conspiracy. The defendants were fined US$8 each (the cost of one week's wages) and made to pay the costs of the suit.[4]

The law established in this case, that labor unions are illegal conspiracies, would remain the law until Commonwealth v. Hunt, tried in Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[5]

gollark: False positive rate, though.
gollark: You would need many, many samples of "normal" messages, and then many samples of "obviously wrong because they appear to disagree with you" messages, and a bunch of training time.
gollark: I mean, I don't have one personally, I have no practical experience with modern ML stuff, and more importantly training data.
gollark: No.
gollark: Natural language processing is EXTREMELY HARD to do nicely, so there would be a horrible false positive rate.

See also

References
  1. Also known as the Philadelphia Cordwainers case. (The full case name is: Commonwealth v. Pullis, Mayor's Court of Philadelphia (1806)); The full case can be found in; Commons, John (1910). A Documentary History of American Industrial Society: Labor conspiracy cases, 1806-1842. Arthur H. Clark Company. pp. 59-248.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. Lloyd, Thomas (1806). The Trial of the Boot & Shoemakers of Philadelphia, on an Indictment for a Combination and Conspiracy to Raise Their Wages. B. Graves.
  3. Swartz, Omar (March 2004). "Defending Labor in Commonwealth v. Pullis: Contemporary Implications For Rethinking Community". Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law. 11 (1).; Urofsky, Melvin I. ; Finkelman, Paul (Editors) (2001). Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512870-2.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: extra text: authors list (link)Tomlins, Christopher L (April 30, 1993). Law, Labor, and Ideology in the Early American Republic. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43857-8. p 128; Barbash, Jack (1954). Taft-Hartley Act in Action, 1947-1954: And essentials of a new labor policy. League for Industrial Democracy. ASIN B0007ECAKW. p. 6; Orren, Karen (Jan 1, 1992). Belated Feudalism: Labor, the Law, and Liberal Development in the United States. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-42254-X. p. 106-107; SUNY Press (July 1, 1990). Liberty, Property, and the Future of Constitutional Development. SUNY Press. ISBN 0-7914-0303-3., p. 246-247; Holt, Wythe (1984). "Labour Conspiracy Cases in the United States, 1805-1842: Bias and Legitimation in Common Law Adjudication". Osgoode Hall Law Journal. 22: 643–653.
  4. Hattam, Victoria (1993). Labor Visions and State Power. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-691-07870-X. p. 53
  5. Swartz, Omar (March 2004). "Defending Labor in Commonwealth v. Pullis: Contemporary Implications For Rethinking Community". Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law. 11 (1).
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.