The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-10-10
They Call on the President to Take
Action at Once Against the
Labor Trust.
The Miners Union Is Conspiracy
to Prevent Interstate
Commerce.
The Debs Case Pointed Out as Prec-
dent-The President Sternly
Shown His Duty.

president ana counsel 1Of the beidWdie N
Hudson Railroad company. and one of
those present at the recent conference
called by President Roosevelt at Wash
ington has sent to President Roosevelt a
letter requesting that the federal govern
ment proceed against the miners organi-
Zation in the courts on the ground that 1t
Is a conspiracy to prevent Interstate COM
MERGE Mr.. Wilcox, it Is said on author
ity, represents all the coal operate In
spokesman.
The letter was made public to-day, to-
gether with a letter written several
months ago to the president along the
same lines. The letter follows
New York. Oct. 8. l9O2.-To the Presl-
dent of the United States-Str: Upon June
7 last l had the honor to address letter
to yourself calling attention to the char
acter of the United Mine Workers of
America. The illegality of that organiza-
tion is fully established by the authorl-
ties to which l then referred and its
methods have since been again condemned
by the circuit courts Of the United States
CU. s. vs.. Weber. IA Fed. Rep $780, United
States VS.. Haggerty, 1l6 Fed. Rep. ol0).
In the Weber case too the court i'd: 1T
is hardly open to serious question that the
ultimate purpose of the union Is not legal.
Some question has. however, been
made whether the rational government
has power to take action against 1t on
that account and I, therefore, desire to
respectfully submit some considerations
which seem to establish that it has such
power.
The statute Of July .. 1890, generally
known as the Sherman act provides that
every contra ct. combination In the form
of trust or otherwise. or conspiracy In re-
straiut of trade commerce among the
several states or with foreign nations Is
among the states begins when the sub
jects thereof begin to move to tfel pace
of destination and ends when they are
sold The question. therefore, Is whether
the mine workers combination constitutes
a restraint upon such commerce. The
view that it does not is based UPON the
contention that this combination AFFECTS
only production Of coal within the states
and not shipments Of coal from one state
to another. 1t Is submitted that this dis
tinction Is without foundation in the law
or tho facts. $50 -
1.-The authority in support of this view
upon which reliance isyprincipally placed
in the case Of UnitgH States VS.. d. c.
Knigh. Co. 1876 T.. S. /. In thai case Sew
eral sugar refneries in Pennsylvania had
been united into one nrganiZatlon Inc
court held that this consolidation or IN
terests did not come within tn statute be-
cause it affected merely the process Of
upon thu, shipment Of the manufactured
product out If the siale. 1t will be seen
that these facts were widely d1terent
from those involved In the present case
."The coal Of the country is the most
important subject of it's interstate com
merce. The mine workers ASSOCIATION
consists of a combination Of persons en-
Moved In the production of coal In many
states Of the union. The object and effect
are to control the terms upon which TINS
subject of interstate commerce may be
produced at all either for state shipments.
It's direct and necessary effect is that no
coal shall be shipped anywhere within
the country unless it permits. This
combination, therefore, not merely re-
strains but destroys interstate commerce
by preventing the existence OF the subject
matter Of such commerce of general pub
lie interest and Importance. No more eff
fective or radical restraint Of interstate
commerce could be imagined. The Della
ware & Hudson company was chartered
by the state Of New York on April 49,
1923. for the purpose, as expressed in its
charter Of furnishing to the state of New
York supply Of coal found in the state Of
Pennsylvania. AS the result of the mine
workers organization this interstate COM
merce Of this corporation has been for
the time being in great part destroyed.
Obviously combination which has the di-
rect effect upon established interstate
business is In every sense a restraint
thereon.
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 prohibit
ton of the statute. In Addystone Pipe
company VS.. United States, IT'S U. S. 211,
there was a combination Of manufacturers
within certain states which restrained
shipments by the parties out of their re-
spective states in competition with each
other; the court said Up. 240) the direct
and immediate result of the combination
was thereof necessarily restraint upon
state commerce in respect OF articles
manufactured by any of the parties to it
to be transported beyond the state in
which they were made. In Chesapeake
g. Ohio Fuel company VS.. United States
115 Fed. Rep. $40, there was a combina-
ton Of all the miners of coal within n
certain territory to sell all their product
to one corporation and the product was IN
the natural course Of business shipped to
other states. Both of these combinations
were held unlawful for the reason that
they restrained the movement of the pro-
ducts OF manufacture out of the state
save upon terms dictated by the parties
to the combination If the fact that a
combination has that direct and necessary
effect brings it within the statute its
form Is Of no Importance for the statute
legal. AS already said the mine workers
combination does not merely restrain in
terstate commerce, but absolutely de-
stroys it. Can 1t be seriously claimed thai
while a combination which restraints ship
ments Of the state would be illegal, one
which absolutely prevents them woulC
not? Manifestly the greater includes tho
less and combination which directly ant
Immediately destroys interstate commerce
by preventing the existence Of it's subject
matter Is quite as illegal as one whicr
merely restraints the shipment of such
matter out of the state. Otherwise. 6
combination which restrained interstate
commerce would be unlawful while one
which destroyed it would be beyond thu
reach of the law. It is submitted that the
national jurisdiction is subject to no sucl
limitation. ~
1T seems very clear, therefore, that
suit would lie against the members of tn,
United Mine Workers association as
combination in restraint of interstate
commerce within the act of July 2, 1890
and that "a preliminary injunction woult
be granted which could be enforced b.
ALI the power Of the national government