its consequences for trade-unionism to be appreciated. But it seems fair to expect that the question which the decision brings home to the unions will be, How is this court-made pecuniary responsibility to
CIVILIZATION AND THE MACHINE PROCESS 338
be evaded ? not, How is it to be lived up to ? Patently,' the decision is unexceptionable under common law rules ; but, also patently,' it broadly traverses trade-union practice and is wholly alien to the attitude of the trade-unionists.*
The animus shown by the trade-unionists in this shirkmg of pecuniary responsibility is characteristic of their attitude toward common law rules. The unions and their methods of work are essentially extrarlegal. It is only reluctantly, as defendants if at all, that unions are accustomed to appear in court. When they make a move for statutory enactment, as for the enforcement of a normal day or of sanitary and safeguarding regulations, it is prevailingly to criminal law that they turn.