Andrew J. Aikens v. State of Wisconsin

1904-05-31

Headline: Court upheld convictions under a state law banning malicious business combinations, allowing punishment of coordinated boycotts that intentionally harm a rival newspaper and limiting some collective refusals to contract.

Holding: The Court held that a state may punish a combination formed to 'maliciously' injure a rival business, affirmed the convictions because malicious intent was alleged or admitted, and ruled such combinations are not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Real World Impact:

Allows punishment of coordinated boycotts that intentionally harm rival businesses.
Makes collective refusals to contract punishable when motivated by malice.
Limits protection for jointly organized schemes in trade competition.

Topics: boycotts, business competition, right to contract, state criminal law, advertising disputes

Summary

Background

The dispute involves three managers of Milwaukee newspapers and The Journal Company, a Milwaukee newspaper publisher. The Journal Company raised its advertising rates about twenty‑five percent. The managers agreed that anyone who paid the higher rate would be refused advertising in their papers unless they paid a matching increase, while those who refused the increase could advertise at the old rate. The State charged the managers under a Wisconsin law that punishes two or more persons who combine to "wilfully or maliciously" injure another's business or reputation. The managers demurred or pleaded that their coordinated conduct was lawful competition protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning

The Court focused on the word "maliciously," interpreting it to mean malevolent harm done for its own sake, not merely harm foreseen as a means to profit. Because the informations alleged malicious intent, and that intent was admitted or not effectively denied by the pleas, the Court concluded the statute applied to this case. The opinion explained that combinations formed to inflict wrongful harm may be punished even if some of the acts in the scheme might be lawful when done by a single person, and that the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect the liberty to combine for purely malevolent ends.

Real world impact

The ruling affirms convictions and allows states to punish coordinated boycotts or similar conspiracies aimed at harming a rival business. It reduces protection for collective conduct in trade when the motive is malicious, while leaving open unresolved questions about mere "wilful" injury or mixed motives. The decision treats malicious combinations as a proper subject for legislative repression.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented, saying the Court wrongly read the statute narrowly and that the construction here would deprive citizens of a lawful right to contract protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.