s decided, the court's charge to the jury was
very different. Nothing was said about the illegality of the
combinations to raise wages; on the contrary, the jury was instructed
that this was not the question at issue. The issue was stated to be
whether the defendants had combined to secure an increase in their wages
by unlawful means. To the question what means were unlawful, in this
case the answer was given in general terms, namely that "coercive and
arbitrary" means are unlawful. The fines imposed upon the defendants
were only nominal.

A third notable case of the group, namely the Pittsburgh case in 1815,
grew out of a strike for higher wages, as did the preceding cases. The
charges were the same as in those and the judge took the identical view
that was taken by the court in the New York case. However, he explained
more fully the meaning of "coercive and arbitrary" action. "Where
diverse persons," he said, "confederate together by direct means to
impoverish or prejudice a third person, or to do acts prejudicial to the
community," they are engaged in an unlawful conspiracy. Concretely, it
is unlawful to "conspire to compel an employer to hire a certain
description of persons," or to "conspire to prevent a man from freely
exercising his trade in a particular place," or to "conspire to compel
men to become members of a particular society, or to contribute toward
it," or when persons "conspire to compel men to work at certain prices."
Thus it was the effort of the shoemakers' society to secure a closed
shop which fell chiefly under the condemnation of the court.

The counsel for the defense argued in this case that whatever is lawful
for one individual is lawful also for a combination of individuals. The
court, however, rejected the arguments on the ground that there was a
basic difference between an individual doing a thing and a combination
of individuals doing the same thing. The doctrine of conspiracy was thus
given a clear and unequivocal definition.

Another noteworthy feature of the Pittsburgh case was the emphasis given
to the idea that the defendants' conduct was harmful to the public. The
judge condemned the defendants because they tended "to create a monopoly
or to restrain the entire freedom of the trade." What a municipality is
not allowed to do, he argued, a private association of individuals must
not be allowed to do.

Of the group of cases which grew out of the revival of trade union
activity in the