ing, that the ancient English statutes which established prices, and which made crimes of mere efforts to enhance prices, never formed part of our law. As to this point let me first give an extract from the opinion of Chief Justice Shaw in Commonwealth v. Hunt(a).

It reads:

"We have no doubt, that by the operation of the constitution of this Commonwealth, the general rules of the common law, making conspiracy an indictable offence, are in force here, and that this is included in the description of laws which had, before the adoption. of the constitution, been used and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practised in the courts of law. Const. of Mass. c. VI. § 6. It was so held in Commonwealth v. Boynton, and Commonwealth v. Pierpont, cases decided before reports of cases were regularly published,* and in many cases since. Commonwealth v. Ward, 1 Mass. 473; Commonwealth v. Judd, and Commonwealth v. Tibbetts, 2 Mass. 329, 536; Commonwealth v. Warren, 6 Mass. 74. Still, it is proper in this connexion to remark, that although the common law in regard to conspiracy in this Commonwealth is in force, yet it will not necessarily follow that every indictment at common law for this offence is a precedent for a similar indictment in this state. The general rule of the common law is, that it is a criminal and indictable offence, for two or more to confederate and combine together, by concerted means, to do that which is unlawful or criminal, to the injury of the public, or portions or classes of the community, or even to the rights of an individual. This rule of law may be equally in force as a rule of the common law, in England and in this Commonwealth; and yet it must depend upon the local laws of each country to determine, whether the purpose to be accomplished by the combination, or the concerted means of accomplishing it, be unlawful or criminal in the respective countries. All those laws of the parent country, whether rules of the common law, or early English statutes, which were made for the purpose of regulating the wages of laborers, the settlement of paupers, and making it penal for any one to use a trade or handicraft to which he had not served a full apprenticeship-not being adapted to the circumstances of our colonial condition—were not adopt

(a) Commonwealth v. Hunt, 4 Metcalf, 111, p. 121.

*See a statement of these cases in 3 Law Reporter, 295, 296.

ed, used or approved, and therefore do not come within the description of the laws adopted and confirmed by the provision of the constitution already cited. This consideration will do something towards reconciling the English and American cases, and may indicate how far the principles of the English cases will apply in this Commonwealth, and show why a conviction in England, in many cases, would not be a precedent for a like conviction here. The King v. Journeymen Tailors of Cambridge, 8 Mod. 10, for instance, is commonly cited as an authority for an indictment at common law, and a conviction of journeymen mechanics of a conspiracy to raise their wages. It was there held, that the indictment need not conclude contra formam statuti, because the gist of the offence was the conspiracy, which was an offence at common law. At the same time it was conceded, that the unlawful object to be accomplished was the raising of wages above the rate fixed by a general act of parliament. It was therefore a conspiracy to violate a general statute law, made for the regulation of a large branch of trade, affecting the comfort and interest of the public; and thus the object to be accomplished by the conspiracy was unlawful, if not criminal."

Judge Gibson, of Pennsylvania, in Commonwealth v. Carlisle(a), uses this language:

"There are, indeed, a variety of British precedents of indictments against journeymen for combining to raise their wages, and precedents rank next to decisions as evidence of the law; but it has been thought sound policy in England to put this class of the community under restrictions so severe, by statutes that never were extended to this country, that we ought to pause before we adopt their law of conspiracy, as respects artisans, which may be said to have, in some measure, indirectly received its form from the pressure of positive enactment, and which, therefore, may be entirely unfitted to the condition and habits of the same class here."

Mr. Bishop says(b):

"Whatever the language of some of the old cases, no lawyer of the present day would hold it indictable for men simply to associate to promote their own interests or specifically to raise their wages. Or if employers should combine simply to reduce wages, not proposing

(a) Brightly, 36.

(b) 2 Bishop Crim. Law, § 233.

The re

any unlawful means, perhaps we might not so much commend them, yet still they would stand under no disfavor from the law. sult of which is that a conspiracy to enhance or reduce wages is not indictable per se, while yet it may be so by reason of proposed unlawful means."

While some parts of the English criminal law beyond doubt formed part of the criminal law of the English colonies, yet the repeal of the statutes as to forestalling, regrating, and engrossing, took place before the separation of the colonies from the mother country; and there is no indication, so far as I am aware, that the crimes of forestalling, engrossing, and regrating ever existed on this side of the water, except under certain special statutes, which are next to be mentioned.

For we have had our own separate experience in attempts to regulate prices by statute, of the same nature, and with the same results, as in England, although the results with us were reached much more quickly, and were followed more quickly by the repeal of the obnoxious and pernicious legislation.

Our attempts of this character were made during the Revolutionary War, at the time when great financial distress had ensued from the issue of large quantities of paper currency. Naturally there was a great rise in prices, of both labor and merchandise. At once, by concerted action, attempts were made, especially in the New England States and in New York, to control prices by statute. The Journals of Congress, under the date of November 22d, 1777, contain the following resolution :

"To maintain our fleets and armies, large sums have been emitted in bills of credit, and the same method has been embraced by the respective states to answer their internal wants. By these expedients, our paper currency, notwithstanding the solid basis on which it is founded, is multiplied beyond the rules of good policy. No truth being more evident, than that where the quantity of money of any denomination exceeds what is useful as a medium of commerce, its comparative value must be proportionably reduced. To

this cause, conspiring with the arts of our open and secret enemies, the shameful avidity of too many of our professed friends and the scarcity of foreign commodities are we to ascribe the depreciation of our currency the consequences to be apprehended are equally obvious and alarming. They tend to the depravity of morals, the decay of public virtue, a precarious supply for the war, debasement of the public faith, injustice to individuals, and the destruction of the honour, safety and independence of the United States. Loudly, therefore, are we called on to provide a reasonable and effectual remedy."

The resolutions thereupon proceeded to recommend to the different States:

1. The raising of five million dollars by taxes.

2. The refraining from the emission of further bills of credit, and the withdrawal of part of those already emitted.

3. Effectual provisions for the administration of justice. 4. The raising of money by loan.

5. The appointment of commissioners from the different States to convene "in order to regulate and ascertain the price of labour, manufactures, internal produce, and commodities imported from foreign parts, military stores excepted, and also to regulate the charges of inn-holders: and that on the report of the commissioners, each of the respective legislatures enact suitable laws, as well for enforcing the observance of such of the regulations as they shall ratify, and enabling such inn-holders to obtain the necessary supplies, as to authorise the purchasing commissaries for the army or any other person whom the legislatures may think proper, to take from any engrossers, forestallers or other person possessed of a larger quantity of any such commodities or provisions than shall be competent for the private annual consumption of their families, and who shall refuse to sell the surplus at the prices to be ascertained as aforesaid, paying only such price for the same.

6. And in order to introduce immediate economy in the public expense, the spirit of sharping and extortion,

and the rapid and excessive rise of every commodity being confined within no bounds; and considering how much time must unavoidably elapse before the plan directed by the foregoing resolution can be carried into effect,

"Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the respective legislatures of the United States, without delay, by their separate authority, to adopt and effectually enforce a temporary regulation of the prices of provisions and other commodities for the supply of the army, in such manner as they shall judge reasonable; and to continue in force until the general regulation before proposed shall be adopted.'

Pursuant to these resolutions we find an act passed by the legislature of the State of New York on April 3d, 1778, Chap. 34, entitled “An Act to regulate the wages of mechanicks and labourers, the prices of goods and commodities and the charges of inn-holders within this State, and for other purposes therein mentioned."

That act recited the Resolutions of Congress of November 22d, 1777, and proceeded to fix the wages of farmers, mechanics and teamsters, the prices of American manu. factures, of hemp and wool, of European goods, woolen cloths, rum, sugar, and other commodities. It also purported to fix profits, of traders, retailers, and vendors, and of transactions in many classes of merchandise.

Its last section read: "And be it further enacted. .. That this law, unless sooner repealed by the legislature of this State, shall be and continue in full force and effect during the present war between the United States of America and Great Britain and no longer.”

This New York statute was repealed in the same year with its passage.

A similar experience was had in the New England States, which had united for common action almost a year earlier, of their own motion. On December 25th, 1776, a meeting was held at Providence, R. I., of a committee composed of delegates from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, for the purpose of