Commonwealth+v.+Hunt

Commonwealth v. Hunt

[[image:https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bLU4i056z3-xx445ihtQAuxyNtho2uPWRtKzUesXT3AT_y_TifH7PM70qhT1m1vBe-8jpYw5wEcrykHbRbpYGTACN0mCczeaomiec2_JvJ8pj9Fhygg width="160" height="148" align="right"]]
Massachusetts-March 1842 

**Chief Justice** Lemuel Shaw was born on January 9, 1781, in West Barnstable, Massachusetts. He was the second son of Reverend Oaks Shaw who taught Lemuel all about english and the classics.While his education was mainly from his father, he still went to Harvard and studied law for 3 years and graduated in 1800 with honors. Shaw was admitted into the bar in both New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1804 and over the next two decades he practiced law while still submersing himself in his home state's politics. He was a Justice of the Peace, an ambitious federalist organizer, a delegate to the Massachusetts Constitutional convention of 1820, and a state senator in 1821 and 1822. The majority of Shaw’s practice was commercial, and he was a part of many court cases that were very important to America. He became a wealthy and prominent lawyer which caught the attention of many. In 1830, Governor Levi Lincoln offered him the position of Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He would keep this position for 30 years before he resigned from the bench in 1860 just one year before his death in 1861. Shaw's views on labor and civil rights helped decide many cases of the time. In his best known and most praised decision, Shaw cleared the way for labor unions to operate freely in Massachusetts in Commonwealth v Hunt. **(is this a picture of Hunt or Lemuel Shaw?)**

**Documents and Amendments** The first two US amendments gives the people freedom of speech and freedom of association. **2nd amendment deals with guns.** These amendments were not truly given to the workers until the aftermath of this case. The worker's rights to freedom of speech and association were being denied by their employers by not being able to express what they felt because they were not able to form unions and have strikes without being charged. After Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw removed the idea of being charged of conspiracy in forming unions, the workers were now fully able to exhibit their first and second amendment rights. The ruling of the Commonwealth v Hunt case truthfully did not help labor unions as much as was expected though. Many judges were still anti-union and labor unions would still be harassed through anti-trust suits and injunctions. Not until the Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932 and the Wagner Act of 1935 were established and labor's rights to organize were recognized. Without the Commonwealth v Hunt case, these acts may not have been established in the first place.

**Summary** Commonwealth v. Hunt was a landmark case ruled by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on the subject of labor unions and strikes. Before this decision, which was based on a previous case from 1806 called Commonwealth v Pulli, labor unions which attempted to create a unionized workplace would be charged with conspiracy. From that case came the labor conspiracy doctrine which said that collective bargaining would interfere with the natural operation of the marketplace, raise wages to high levels, and destroy competition. This doctrine led to a hostile relationship between unions and empl oyers. Between 1806 and 1842, this doctrine was applied to all cases involving labor unions. But in 1839, when John Hunt and the Boston Journeymen boot-makers society was charged with conspiracy, many people began to question this doctrine. The boot-makers society brought the case all the way up to the Massachusetts supreme judicial court and in 1842 Chief J ustice Lemuel Shaw ruled in their favor declaring that as long as the methods used were legal, the formation of labor unions was not criminal conspiracy. The outcome of the Commonwealth v Hunt case has been called the foremost 19th century ruling on labor unions because it removed the stigma of criminality from unions.

**Main Issue **The main issue of the case was whether the formation of labor unions could be deemed as criminal conspiracy. During the mid 19th century, workers were trying to improve their awful working conditions. They tried to reason with their employers and tried to get state legislatures to pass laws to shorten the work days. In 1839, the Journeymen Boot-makers' Society, formed by John Hunt, attempted organizing a strike against all employers who had hired non-union members. The leaders of the union, including Hunt, were charged with conspiracy. Hunt and the rest of the boot-makers society brought the case all the way up to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and in 1842 they won the case when Chief Justice Shaw removed the stigma of criminality from forming unions. Eventhough Shaw removed the idea of conspiracy from forming unions, the ruling did not have as big an effect as some would of liked. Labor unions would continue to be harassed legally until the Norris-LaGuardia Act and the Wagner Act were established and people's rights to organize unions were finally given.

**Decision ** The final decision of the Commonwealth v. Hunt case was not originally all in favor of John Hunt and the rest of the bootmaker union. At first, the Boston municipal courts unanimously ruled all the defendants guilty of conspiracy until an appeal made by defense attorney Robert Rantoul Jr. caused the people in the court to second guess themselves. Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw wrote the majority opinion when he sided with the defendants and declared that the formation of labor unions was legal as long as the methods used in the the union and the strikes were legal. Chief Justice Shaw's words made the rest of the court follow suit and the Boston Journeymen Boot-makers society won the right to form unions for all of Massachusetts.

**What if?** If the case went the other way and the court ruled guilty, then unions would have had to wait longer to have become legal entities. They could not represent th emselves in court and would not be allowed legally to plan and demonstrate protests. It would have been a major set back for the fight for unions, and the people would not be able to demonstrate their rights as workers. Labor unions were formed because workers felt they were being wrongly treated and wrongly compensated by their employers and if the case would of went the other way, people who were just exercising their basic human rights would of been wrongly charged of criminal conspiracy, fined, and maybe even spend jail time.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: times; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">**Who voted what?** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: times; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Before Commonwealth v. Hunt, based on a prior 1806 case called Commonwealth v. Pullis, labor unions which attempted to create a unionized workplace could be charged with criminal conspiracy.When John Hunt and 6 others from the Boston Journeymen boot-makers society brought their case all the way up to the supreme court, originally the municipal courts in Boston ruled all the defendants guilty of conspiracy, but on appeal by a radical defense attorney Robert Rantoul, Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw declared in March of 1842 that the formation of labor unions and the right to form a strike were deemed legal under the United States Constitution as long as the protests were non-violent and did not disrupt the rights of those around them. Because no violence was posed by their union, Shaw sided with the defendants and the Court followed suit. This case, in effect, legalized the American labor union movement.

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: medium; text-align: left;">**Members of Court** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The defendants were John Hunt and 6 others from the Boston Journeymen boot-makers union and the plaintiffs were the commonwealth, an organized political community(which is really no different than a state, but Massachusetts and 3 other states prided them selveswith being able to be called commonwealths.)The members on court for this case were: <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw: 1830-1860<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Samuel Hubbard: 1842-1848 <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Samuel Wilde:1815-1850

<span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: medium;">**Personal Opinion** <span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: medium;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Kevin ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I agree with the way things turned out. I think that workers, if they are being mistreated by their employers, they should have every right to protest in order to get what is fair and just. If protesting and forming labor unions will get them they’re rights and gain the attention of their employers, than that’s perfectly fine. As long as the protests are non-violent then nothing is wrong with what the people wanted to do. The only reason that forming labour unions was deemed criminal conspiracy beforehand is because the employers didn’t want to own up to how poorly they were treating their hard working staff and they didn’t care at all about their worker’s safety or welfare as long as they saved a couple of dollars. I think that it was ridiculous how people could get charged with criminal conspiracy and possibly serve jail time just for exercising their rights as a worker. **Is this picture of kids from the 1840s? Don't just use pics b/c they look cool.** <span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: medium;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Nathan ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">The ruling of the case worked out so that people’s rights were not violated. I like the way it turned out because of that. Workers were given a better chance to fight. it is those little steps that get you closer that are important. just in general it is nice to see the little man fight for his rights and win. the case didn’t improve working conditions or improve wage, it gave them the right to fight for them as a legal entity. <span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: medium; text-align: left;">**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Bethany ** <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; display: block; font-family: 'times new roman',times,serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">I agree with how things turned out. The world would not be the way it is without this case. For example, the current teachers in many districts would not be teaching because they are in unions. This case gave workers a push forward in the way they would be treated and the way that they could deal with problems from employers. The way the world was back then is so different because of this case. Before this case people would be put in jail if they tried to join a union, or if they wanted to express their rights in a way the employer didn't like. It is completely immoral for this to happen which is why I agree with the ruling of the court. <span style="background-color: transparent; display: block; font-family: times; font-size: medium; text-align: left;">

**<span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">Citations ** **<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Commonwealth v. Hunt." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. < <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">[|__http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/128964/Commonwealth-v-Hunt__] <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">>. **

**<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Levy, Leonard Williams. The Law of the Commonwealth and Chief Justice Shaw. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. ** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**"Lemuel Shaw - Further Readings." Web. 12 Feb. 2012. <http://law.jrank.org/pages/10229/Shaw-Lemuel.html>.**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**"Lemuel Shaw." //Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia//. Web. 12 Feb. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemuel_Shaw>.**

<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**"Lemuel Shaw Biography." //BookRags.com | Study Guides, Lesson Plans, Book Summaries and More//. Web. 13 Feb. 2012. <http://www.bookrags.com/biography/lemuel-shaw/>.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**7/7 Biblio** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**24/28 Content -- good job on a tough case.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**3.5/5 Organization - the presentation is out of order, plus label the pics.** <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;"> <span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',Times,serif; font-size: 120%;">**34.5/40 Total**