The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-03-28
JUDGE BILLINes.s DECISION.

AmalRamated Council, does not seem
to bear out the first report nor the COM
ments of some newspapers regarding it.
The telegraphic report said that In an
elaborate opinion the court held that
the officers of the union "were unlawful
in ordering general strike" the infer
ence being that al strikes were unlaw-
full under the act of Congress which pro-
hibits combinations in restraint of
trade. The opinion of the court does
not sustain this construction. 1t does
not deny the right of workmen to strike,
in so far as that means To quit work, but
declares that no organization has O
right to interfere by force with the
commerce of the country or to combine,
by threats and intimidation, to prevent
others from doing the work which they
have refused to do. This is too plain to
be argued, and the principle has been
asserted SO often that it possesses no
novelty.
The really novel feature of this case
is that the decision was rendered under
the act of Congress entitled san act to
protect trade and commerce against un-
lawful restraint and monopoly" This
act was aimed at trusts. it's object being
to break up that kind of combinations
in restraint of trade or commerce. 1t
provides that every contract or COM
bination in the form of trust or other
wise in restraint of trade or commerce
among the several States, or with for
eign nations. Is hereby declared to be
illegal" Such combinations are forbid
den, and entering into them is made a
penal offense. The debates in Congress
show that the law was aimed at combi-
nations of capital known as trusts, but
the words "or otherwise" may perhaps
open the way for q wider construction.
1t is under this provision that Judge
Billings held that combination of
worklnRmen or labor unions in restraint
Of trade comes within the law. This
seems like a strained construction. and
we doubt if it will stand the test of
further discussion. Labor unions are
not primarily com binations In restraint
sarily SO. though they often be-
come so. There is nothing in the
debates of Congress or In other
parts of the law to indicate that it was
intended to apply to labor unions, or
that any person who voted for it thought
it would have such an application.
Judge Billings, in quoting the language
of the law on which his decision was
based. said:
Discussion of the subject had 80 broad
ened the minds of the Legislators that the
source of the evil was not regarded ma
terial aud the evil in Its entirety Is dealt
with. They made the Introduction include
combinations OF capital and labor, as we'll
as, IN fact, all com binations IN restraint of
commerce, without reference TO the char
acter of the person who entered into theIu.
1t may possibly have been the lnten-
tion of the trainers of the law to make
it apply to com binations of labor as we'll
as capital. but, if so, il is strange the de-
bates furnish no indication or sugges-
ton Of the fact.
As already stated, the real novelty of
Judge Biilings's decision is that it was
based on this act of Congress. The
principle asserted by it is not now. He
found that as a matter of fact the flow
of commerce through the city of New
Orleans had been tied up by a strike,
which was maintained by force; that the
transportation of goods was forcibly
stopped, and that the strikers sought to
prevent, and did prevent, everybody
fro,,, ~, n min =, tha cop, v,arca - tLo TO-.
1t was this condition Of things which he
said could not be tolerated. and in MAIN
tanning it the labor organizations were
violating the law. at is." said
Judge Billings, "the successful effort
of the combination of the defendants to
intimidate and overawe others no were
at work in conducting or carrying on
the commerce of the country in which
the court finds their error and their vio-
lation of the statute This does not
deny the right of workingmen to organ
ize or to strike; it simply declares that
thoy cannot be permitted to tie up COM
MERGE by intimidating or overawing
others from doing the work which they
refused to do. As to the soundness of
this view there can be no question what
ever. The right to organize and the
right to strike are indefeasible rights of
workingmep, but when they attempt to
stop the commerce of the country by
force and violence. or to intimidate and
overawe others who are trying TO move
it, they become violators OF law and
should be treated accordingly. There
is no getting away from this principle,
and workingmen and labor unions may
as we'll recognizes the fact first as last
This is the gist of Judge Billings's de-
cision.
This decision, as we'll as the recent
one by United States District Judge
Kicks, of Ohio. shows there is grow
ing demand on the part of the public
for protection against the forcible inter-
ruption of commerce by strikes. The
decisions are responsive to the demand.
The interests of all classes are para
mount to those of one class. 1t will not
do to allow the commerce Of the country
| tc be tied up by any class for any pur-
pose whatever, nor can one set of men