Omaha daily bee., 1902-10-11

the leader OF the miners union and that
Mr.. Mitchell said he would present It to
the district presidents in the hope II would
be accepted.
Governor Odell said: "Mr. Mitchell was
eminently fair and showed every disposition.
to adjust the serious situation"
President Mitchell remained at his hotel
most Of the day comforting with the three
district presidents who are here with him.
L. n. Hammerling OF Wilkesbarre and
Father Ducey also called and remained with
Mr.. Mitchell some time. When Mr.. Mitch
ellis attention was called to the kilograms
reported to have passed between him and
President Meyer Of the Western Federation
OF Miners, concerning Meyers offer to CO.
operate with the Mine Workers by calling
out the western men. Mr.. Mitchell said:
II have nothing to say"
He would not discuss the matter nor ad-
init that II was under consideration.
Demands Unions Prosecution.
David Wilcox, vice president and counsel
for the Delaware & Hudson Railroad COM
pany and one OF those present at the recent
conference called by President Roosevelt at
Washington. has sent to President Roose-
welt a letter demanding that the federal
government proceed against the miners or
ganization in the courts on the ground that
Il is a conspiracy to prevent interstate COM
merce.
Mr.. Wilcox, it is said on authority, repre-
sents all the coal operators in this action
and was selected as their spokesman.
The letter was made public in this city
today, together with a letter written sew
eral months ago to the president along the
same lines. The letter fohowsi
NEW YORK, Oct. s. 1910 the Presi-
dent of the United states: Upon June Z
last had the honor to address a letter to
OF the United Mine Workers of America.
The illegaiity of thst organization Is fully
tRen referred: and its methods have since
been again condemned by the circuit courts
Of the United States ~. S. VS.. Weber, lis
Tic Fed, Rep. $40.
In the Weber case, too. the court said:
1T is hardly open to serious question that
tho ultimate purpose OF the union Is not
legal" Some question has, however, been
made whether the national government has
power to take, action against II on that ac-
count, and therefore respectfully desire TO
81 bmit some considerations which seem to
II dicate Il has such power.
Refers to sherman Act.
The statute of July ?, 1890, generally
known as the Sherman act, provides that
every contract. combination In the form
OF trust or otherwise, or conspiracy In re-
straint of trade or among the
declared to be Illegal" Commerce among
the states begins when the subjects thereof
begin to move to their place of destination
and ends when they are sold.
The question. therefore, Is whether the
mime workers constitute a restraint upon
is based upon the production of coal within
the states and not shipments of coal from
one state to another. It is submitted that
this distinction Is without foundation In
law or facts.
The authority in support of this view upon
which reliance is principally placed Is the
case of United States against d. G. Knight
/ Company, 1866 L. S ]. In that case several
sugar rehneries in Pennsylvania had been
united In one organization. The court held
that this consolidation OF interests did not
come within the statute becauseit affected
merely the proceeds OF manufacture and
had no necessary effect upon the shipment
Of the product out Of the state. 1t will be
seen that these facts were widely different
from those involved in the present case.
The coal OF the country is the most i'm
portant subject of its interstate commerce.
The mine workers organization consists
the production OF coal, in many s'p states Of
the union. Its object and effect are to
control the terms upon which this subject
at all, either for state or interstate ship
ments. Its direct and necessary effect is
that no coal shall be shipped anywhere
within the country unless 1t so permits.
This combination, therefore, not merely
restraints. but destroys interstate commerce
~ NiD VI NiN HhDJNNAs
No more effective or radical restraint of
Interstate could be imagined.
chartered by the state of New York on
April %, 1929, for the purpose. as expressed
In it's charter, of furnishing to the state
the state OF Pennsylvania. AS a result OF
the mine workers organization the inter-
state commerce Of this corporation has
been for the time being in a great part
destroyed. Obviously, a combination which
has this direct effect upon an established
Interstate business is In every sense a re-
straint thereon.
Restraint of shipments.
Accordingly. since the Knight case. It
has been settled that combinations which
have the effect of restraining shipments out
of the state are within the prohibition OF
against s1p' United ia sta Aasis rs ! fiP s. s SGm there
was a combination Of manufacturer
within certain states which restrained
shipments by the parties out of their re
spective states IN competition with each
other; The court baid CP. ~: The direct
anu immeeiate result OF the complnatlon
state in respect of articles manu-
featured by any of the parties to II to be
transported beyond the state IN which they
were made" In Chesapeake e. Ohio FueI
Company against United States, Fed. Rep.
$40, there was a combination of all miners
OF coal within a certain territory to sell
all their product to one corporation, and
the product was, In the natural course
shipped to other states. Both of these cor.
they restrained the output of manufacture
out of the state, save on terms dictated by
parties to. the combination.
If the fact that a combination having
that direct and necessary effect brings II
within the statute, its form Is or no i'm
portance. for the statute says that every
such combination is Illegal. AS already
said, the mine workers combination does
not merely restrain Interstate commerce
but absolutely destroys IL. Can IL be seri
ously claimed that while a combination
which Restraints shipments from the stat,
would be Illegal, one which absolutely pre-
vents them would mott?
Manifestly, the greater includes the less
and a combination which directly and i'm
mediately destroys interstate by
preventing the existence OF its subject mat
ter Is quite as illegal as one which merely
Restraints the shipment of such matter on
Of the state. Otherwise, a combination
which restrained interstate woulI
be unlawful, while one which destroyed !
would be beyond the reach OF the law. /
Is submitted that the national jurisdiction
Is subject to no such limitation.
II seems very clear, therefore. that a sui
would lay against the members Of tn
United Mine Worker association, as
combination in restraint of interstate com
merce, within the act Of July 2, 1880. an
that a preliminary injunction would b
granted, which could be enrnrced by al
the power of the national government
This precise course was followed in tn
Debs case and was supported by the courts
not merely on account OF interference
with the malls, but also on the ground o
restraint OF shipments from one state {
e. IH-1 1aH -AmN