PRIVILEGE, MALICE, AND INTENT. 9 the face of the organization of the world which is taking place so fast, and of its inevitable consequences. I make these sug- gestions, not as criticisms of the decisions, but to call attention to the very serious legislative considerations which have to be weighed. The danger is that such considerations should have their weight in an articulate form as unconscious prejudice or half conscious inclination. To measure them justly needs not only the highest powers of a judge and a training which the practice of the law does not insure, but also a freedom from prepossessions which is very hard to attain. It seems to me desirable that the work should be done with express recognition of its nature. The time has gone by when law is only an unconscious embodiment of the common will. It has become a conscious reaction upon itself of organized society knowingly seeking to determine its own destinies. To sum up this part of the discussion, when a responsible de- fendant seeks to escape from liability for an act which he had notice was likely to cause temporal damage to another, and which has caused such damage in fact, he must show a justification. The most important justification is a claim of privilege. In order to pass upon that claim, it is not enough to consider the nature of the damage, and the effect of the act, and to compare them. Often the precise nature of the act and its circumstances must be examined. It is not enough, for instance, to say that the defend- ant induced the public, or a part of them, not to deal with the plaintiff. We must know how he induced them. If by refusing to let them occupy a building, or to employ them, the answer may be peremptory in his favor, without regard to other circumstances. If by acts wrongful for other reasons, the answer falls outside my subject. If by advice, or combined action not otherwise unlaw- ful, motive may be a fact of the first importance. It is entirely conceivable that motive, in some jurisdictions, should be held to affect all, or nearly all, claims of privilege. The cases which I have cited, by way of illustration, come from different States, and might not be regarded as being so consistent with each other as I have assumed them to be. But in all such cases the ground of decision is policy ; and the advantages to the community, on the one side and the other, are the only matters really entitled to be weighed. I only wish to add that thus far, when the act of a third person is nearer to the harm than the act of the defendant, I have assumed the former to be lawful. I have said nothing as
