The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1902-10-10
Trying TO FIND way
TO END COAL STRIKE

(contfnued From Page One.)
LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT.
The Wilcox lettcr was made public In
this city today. together with a letter
written several months ago to the presi-
dent along the same lines. The letter
foIlows:-
New York, Oct 8, 1907
TO the president or the United States:
Sir: Upon June 7, last had the honor
60 address letter TO yourself, calling at
tentton to the character OF the United
Mine Workers OF America The illegalty
OF that organization Is fully established
by the authorities TO which then re-
ferred, and it's methods have since been
again condemned by the Circuit courts OF
the United States. Omitted States VS..
Weber ia, Fed. Rep. $50; United States
VS.. Haggerty. 1l6 Fed. Rep. 800 In the
case OF Weber. too. the court said: 1T is
hardly open to serious question that the
ultimate purpose OF the Union is not le-
gal" Some question has. however. been
made whether the national government
has power to take action against II on
that account, and 1 therefore. desire To
respectfully submit some consideration
which seem TO establish that 1t had such
power.
SHERMAN LAW QUOTED.
THE statute of July 2. 1890. generally
known as the Sherman act, provides that
every contract. combination I'm the form
of trust or otherwise or conspiracy IN
restraint OF trade or commerce among the
several states or with foreign nations *
hereby declared TO be illegal"
Commerce among the states begins
when the subjects thereof begt nto move
60 their place of destination and ends
when they are sold.
The question. therefore. Is whether the
mine workers combination constitutes a
restraint upon such commerce. In view
that IL does not Is based upon the con-
tention 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 the facts.
The authority In support OF this view
upon which reliance is principally placed
IN the case of United States VS.. f. c.
Knight Co., lb6. u. S., i. In that case
several sugar refneries in Pennsylvania
had been united into one organisation.
The court held that this consolidation Of
interests did not come within the statute
because IL affected merely the process
of manufacture and had no necessary
effect upon shipment of the manufac-
tured product out OF the state
FACTS WIDELY DIFFERENT.
It will be seen that these facts were
widely different from those involved In |
the present case. The coal OF the coun-
try Is the most important subject OF its |
Interstate commerce. The mine workers |
association consists OF combination OF |
persons employed In the production OF |
coal In many states OF the Union.
It's object and effect are to control the |
terms upon which this subject of inter |
state commerce may be produced at all |
either for state or interstate shipments.
Its direct and necessary effect Is that no |
GOAL shall be shipped anywhere within |
the country unless IL so permits. This !
combination. therefore. not merely re-
strains but destroys Interstate COM
merce by preventing the existence OF the
subject matter Of such commerce OF the
. general public interest and Importance.
No more effective or radical restraint of
interstate commerce could be imagined
The Delaware and Hudson company
was chartered by the state OF New York
on April %. 1873. for the purpose as ex-
pressed In its charter. OF furnishing to
the state Of New York a supply OF coal
found in the state OF Pennsylvania.
COMMERCE DESTROYED.
As the result OF the mine workers or
ganization this inter state commerce OF
This corporation has been for the time
being In great part DESTROYED Obvious
eject upon an established inter state
business Is in every sense restraint
thereon.
Accordingly. since the Knight case. Il
has been settled that combinations which
have the effect OF restraining shipments
out OF the state are within the prohibit
tion os the statute. In Addyston Pipe
Co. vs.. United States, 175, II. 8. 22f, there
was combination OF manufacturers
within certain states which restrained
shipment by the parties out OF their re-
fpective states I'm competition with each
other; the court said (p 240), The direct
and Immediate result OF the combination,
was, therefore. necessarily restraint
upon state commerce I'm respect OF arti-
cles manufactured by any OF the parties
20 IT TO be transported beyond the state |
an which they were made
In Chesapeake and Ohio Fuel comnanv
VS.. U. s.. lis Fed Rep 51O there was a |
combination OF all the miners OF coal
within certain territory to sell all their |
product 20 one corporation and the pro- |
duct was in the natural course OF busi-
ness shipped 10 other states Both OF
these combinations were held unlawful |
Tor tho reason that they restrained the |
movement OF the products OF manufacture |
put OF the state. save upon terms dictated
by the parties 10 the combination.
II the fact that combination has that
direct and necessary effect brings IL with |
tn the statute. It's form n OF no import
nnce, for the statute says that every such
combination IN Illegal. AS already aaId
The mine workers combination does not
merely restrain inter state commerce, but
absolutely destroys ~. Can II be serious
fy claimed that while a combination
which restrains shipments out OF the
state would be Illegal. one which absolute
~ prevents them would not7
SAYS SUIT WOULD LIE.
II seems very clear. therefore. that a
guh would lie against the members Of
the United Nine Workers association az
q combination In restraint OF Interstate
commerce within the act Of July 2. 1890
snd that n preliminary injunction would
be granted which could he enforcod ~,