1. How did the court view the combination of workers with respect to their intent?
2. Did the court find the continuance of the withholding of labor attributable to a combination?

What is the case now before us? … A combination of workmen to raise their wages may be considered in a twofold point of view: one is to benefit themselves [and] the other is to injure those who do not join their society. The rule of law condemns both. If the rule be clear, we are bound to conform to it even though we do not comprehend the principle upon which it is founded. We are not to reject it because we do not see the reason of it. It is enough, that it is the will of the majority. It is law because it is their will—if it is law, there may be good reasons for it though we cannot find them out. But the rule in this case is pregnant with sound sense and all the authorities are clear upon the subject. Hawkins, the greatest authority on the criminal law, has laid it down, that a combination to maintaining one another, carrying a particular object, whether true or false, is criminal.…

In the profound system of law, (if we may compare small things with great) as in the profound systems of Providence … there is often great reason for an institution, though a superficial observer may not be able to discover it. If obedience alone is required in the present case, the reason may be this. One man determines not to work under a certain price and it may be individually the opinion of all: in such a case it would be lawful in each to refuse to do so, for if each stands, alone, either may extract from his determination when he pleases. In the turnout of last fall, if each member of the body had stood alone, fettered by no promises to the rest, many of them might have changed their opinion as to the price of wages and gone to work; but it has been given to you in evidence, that they were bound down by their agreement, and pledged by mutual engagements, to persist in it, however contrary to their own judgment. The continuance in improper conduct may therefore well be attributed to the combination. The good sense of those individuals was prevented by this agreement, from having its free exercise…. Is it not restraining, instead of promoting, the spirit of ’76 when men expected to have no law but the Constitution, and laws adopted by it or enacted by the legislature in conformity to it? Was it the spirit of ’76, that either masters or journeymen, in regulating the prices of their commodities should set up a rule contrary to the law of their country? General and individual liberty was the spirit of ’76. It is our first blessing. It has been obtained and will be maintained…. Though we acknowledge it is the hard hand of labour that promises the wealth of a nation, though we acknowledge the usefulness of such a large body of tradesmen and agree they should have every thing to which they are legally entitled; yet we conceive they ought to ask nothing more. They should neither be slaves nor the governors of the community.
The sentiments of the court, not an individual of which is connected either with the masters or journeymen; all stand independent of both parties…are unanimous. They have given you the rule as they have found it in the book, and it is now for you to say, whether the defendants are guilty or not. The rule they consider as fixed, they cannot change it. It is now, therefore, left to you upon the law, and the evidence, to find the verdict. If you can reconcile it to your consciences, to find the defendants not guilty, you will do so; if not, the alternative that remains, is a verdict of guilty.
[The jury found the defendants guilty of combining and conspiring to raise their wages, and the penalty was a fine of eight dollars for each defendant.]