Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-04-09
Effect of Construction.

Under this construction the operation of
the law is severe, and claimed to be un-
duly severe, on those who engage in trade
disputes with their employers, for if such
employees, two or more, agree to do acts
which will restrain such interstate or for
eign commerce (by foreign commerce"
meaning commerce between the United
States and foreign countries) they have
committed a crime (Which may or may not
amount to conspiracy, depending on the
nature of the agreement, and whether or
not an act is done to effect the purpose of
the agreement, contract or combination J.,
and If the agreement executed in whole or
in part will restrain such commerce, any
person who does any act, however inno-
cent in itself, and however innocent the in
tent with which it is done, in execution or
furtherance Of such contract or agreement,
is guilty of a crime. 1t has been con-
tended that employees who, as body or
in numbers, quit work in railroad yards,
or at freight stations, or who quit work on
trains even at the end Of the trip, who
solicit or induce others to do SO, or who
agree merely to so quit work, commit
crime under this law as 1t stands, II they
are handling interstate or foreign freight,
or are running interstate trains, as th/
case may be, on the ground that such acts
are in restraint of such commerce, because
they delay 1t for the time being, and are
done pursuant to an agreement which when
executed has that effect, and that the mere
agreement to so act is crime, because in
restraint Of trade or commerce if executed.
Under this construction carried to its
logical conclusion such employees may not
meet together, consult and agree to quit an
employment distasteful to them, or counsel,
advise solicit their companions or CO.
employees to do SO, even agree to meet
for that purpose.
Taking the act of July 2. 1890, and that
Of ay II, 1879, together, 1t is easily under
stood that under the above construction
lawyer and even judge may (as has been
done) build up a case Of conspiracy on very
fiimsy grounds; that an injunction may be
issued and honest and law-abiding men re-
strained from expressing honest opinions,
their honest convictions as to the merits of
trade dispute, giving honest and well-in-
tended advice, or even pursuing their ordi-
nary avocations under pain Of fine or i'm
prisonment for contempt of court in dis
obeying injunction orders not understood,
not justified by the facts, and, in some
cases, not served upon them, for such or
ders are operative on persons not parties
to the action and not served with process
or the injunction in many instances if
knowledge thereof is shown
A Remedy for Evils.
The bill is intended as a remedy for evils
and not as a sword in the hands of en-
ployes. The United States got along very
well prior to July 2, 1890. and it was not
supposed that the Sherman law was aimed
at or intended to strike employees That
act was heralded as triumph of the peo-
pie in their war against monopolies and
trusts. 1t has fallen into "innocuous desue-
tude," so far as monopolies and trusts are
concerned, for 1t Is held not to apply to
manufacture and production and those en-
gagged therein. and who form trusts and
combinations and conspiracies to monopo-
lize and who do monopolize those indus
tries. Witness the iron and steel trust, the
glass trust, the sugar trust, the whisky
trust, the tobacco trust and many others
which control production and the cost of
these articles to the consumer.
1t has been decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States un re Debs,
hereafter quoted from and commented
upon) that all strikes that restrain inter-
state commerce may be restrained, con-
trolled, and sufficiently suppressed by the
power Of the civil courts entirely inde-
pendent Of and without reference to the
Sherman act Of July 2. 1890, which is
sought to be modified. Qnjunctions may be
mandatory as well as prohibitory.)
1 The questions then arise, what good, IL
any, will come of the enactment Of this
bill into law, and what evils, IL any, will
follow? It is also question whether or
not the enactment will deprive the courts
of the United States of the power they now
have to restrain acts which interfere with
and obstruct the carrying of the United
States mails, or Interstate and foreign
commerce, or which destroy or tend to
destroy such commerce. or which block up