Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1902-10-18
INJUNCTION ASKED
AGAINST Strikers
David Wilcox, Spokesman for
Operators, Addresses Long
Letter to Roosevelt.
APPEAL. TO
Asks That Strikers Be Suppressed With
All the Power of the Nation
Debs Case Cited as a
Precedent.

New York, Oct. 13.-Davld Wilcox
vice president and ounse for the Della
ware q Hudson Railroad company, has
sent to President Roosevelt q letter de-
handing that the federal government
proceed against the miners organiZa-
ton In the courts on the ground that II
IL a conspiracy to prevent interstate
m
Wilcox, it is said on authority, repre-
scnts all the coal operators in this see
ton, ard was selected as their spokes-
man. The letter follows:
New York, Oct. s. To the President
Of the United States: Sir: Upon june
7 last. | had the honor to address a
letter to yourself calling attention tc
the character of the United Mine Work
ers Of America. ia illegality of that
organization is fully established by au-
thorities to which | then referred and
It's methods have since been again con
demnei by the circuit courts Of the
United States. Omitted states vs.. Web
or, United states VS.. HaggertyJ IN
the Weber case, too, the court said: II
Is hardly open to serious question that
the ultimate purpose of the union Is not
legal
Question Of Jurisdiction.
'Some question has, however, been
made az to whether the national gov
eminent has power 10 take action
against II on that account, and | there
fore desire respectfully TO submit some
considerations which seem to establish
that it has such power.
The statutr generally known as tho
Sherman act provides that every ron
tract or combination i'm the form OF 4
trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in re-
StrainI of trade or IN amOnS
the several states or with foreign ma
lions, is hereby declared to be illegal
commerce among the states begins
! when the subjects thereof begin 10
j move to their place Of destination ana
ends whe they are sold. The question,
therefore, is whether the Mine Work
ers' combination constitutes a restraint
upon such commerce.. The view that II
does not is based upon the contention
that his combination affects only the
production Of Coa within the states,
and not shipments OF coal from one
state to another. 1t is submitted thai
this distinction is without foundation
in law or facts.
Authority Quoted.
THE authority in support Of this view
upGn which rolianCe is principally
placed is the case of the United States
vs.. ID. c. Knight company. In that
case several sugar rCtineries in Penn
sylyania had been united in one or
ganization. The court held that this
consolidation Of interests did not COma
within the statute because II affected
merely the process of manufacture ana
had no necessary effect upon the ship
ment Of the manufacturers product out
facts were widely different from those
involved in the present case.
The coal Of the country is n most
important subject of its Interstate ON
merce. The Mine Workers. association
consists of a combination Of persons
employed in the production Of coal in
many states of the union. Its object
and effect is to control the terms upon
which this subject Of interstate com
mercc may be produced at all, either
for state or interstato shipments. Its
direct and necessary effect is that nc
coal shall be shipped anywhere within
the country unless it so permits.
Not Merely Restraints, but Destroys.
This combination. therefore, not
merely restraints but destroys inter
state commerce, by preventing the q
lsteuce Of such commerce in the genera
public interest and Importance. No
more effective or r"6' al restraint Of
Interstate commerce could be imagined
''Thc delaware arl Hudson company
was chartered by the state of New
| York ON April %, 1H12. for the purpose
IS expressed in it's charter. of furnish
Ing to III" state Of New York a supply
Of coal found in tn" state of Pennsyl-
vauia. As a result OF the mine workers
organization the interstate commerce
If his corporation has been for the
time being in great part destroyed. OBJ
yiOusly a combination which has this
direct effect upon established inter
state business is in every n a re
| IT - fFFt tl.r,ln AfttrrLi n Yl u since INC
Knight case it has been accepted that
combinations which have the effect OF
restraining shipments out OF the state
are Within prohibition Of the statute.
More Authorities.
IN Addyston Pip Company rs. Unit
ed States, there was a combination OF
manufacturers within certain states
which restrained shipments by parties
out of their respective states in Compc-
tition with each other. The COuTt said
the direct and immediate result of the
combination was thereof necessarily a
restraint upOn state commerce in re-
speCt Of articles manufactured by any
parties to it to be transported beyond
the state in which they were.
I'm Chesapeake q Ohio Fuel Co., vs..
United States, there VAS a combination
Of all miners of coal within q certain
territory to sell all their product TO one
cor 1oration and the product was in the
natural course of business shipped 10
other states. Both these combinations
were held to be unlawful for the cas-
tina they restrained the movement of
products Of manufacture out of the
state save upon the terms dictated by
the parties to the combination. If the
fact that a combination has that direct
ana necessary effect brings 1t within the
statute, It's form is of no Importance
for the statute says that every such
combination is Illegal. As already said,
the mine workers combination is IL
legal. AS already said, the mine work
ers' combination does not merely re-
strain interstate commerce, but abso-
lutely destroys it. Can it be seriously
claimed that a combination which
restrained shipments would not? Mani
testify the greater includes the less and
a combination watch directly n I'M
mediately destroys interstate commerce
by preventing Existence OF it's subject
matter is quite as Illegal as the one
which merely restraints shipment oi
such matter out Of the state. other
wise the combination which restrained
interstate would be unlaW-
full, while the one which destroyed II
would be beyond reach of the law. II
is submitted that national jurisdiction
is subject to no such limitation.
Injunction Asked For.
1T seems very clear, therefore, that
suit would lie against members of tn.
combination In restraint of interstate