Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1902-10-13

COUNSEL DAVID WILCOX
Asks Action Against Miners Union
Ii,der interstate Commerce Law.

Under Interstate Commerce Law.
New York, Oct. 12.-.David Wilcox. vice
,,-ssident and counsel for the Delaware
Hudson Railroad. and one of those
@-.sanf at the recent conference called
~ president Roosevelt at washington.
p Ss seyt to President Roosevelt q letter
adeemanding that the federal government
de.aad against the miners organization
n the courts on the ground tnat IL Is
arsniracy to prevent Interstate COM
merce. Mr.. Wilcox, 1t Is said on autnoI
~ represents all the coal operators IN
Me section and was selected as their
snnLeenan. The letter was MADE puDi1c
- This city. Friday. together with let
,ar written several months ago 10 tne
nnsIosJent along the same line. The letter
ioNio"s' New York, Oct. s, 1902.
tn me President of the United States:
c,r.-I-pon June last, had the honer
TO address letter to yourself ga, Saii Is,,ad
" ,en re Workers of America. The Elegantly
~ that organization Is t'niV estapHshed
br the authorities To "hicl then L re-
,s,red and it's methods nave since peer.
aain condemned by the circuit courts OF
,se United States Omitted States VS. WEB
~ III Fed Rep. $50; L G1fed states VS.
Haggerty. ZIG Fed KEEP aio2. IN tne as ca,
Of Weber. too. the court said 1t Is hard-
u ane-1 10 serious question that the uiti-
mate purpose of the union is not legal;
Some question has. however, Deen Hiue
urhH
nner 10 take action against IT on That
ppoconnt and | therefore desire to re-
snectfully submit some considerations
which seem to establish that IL mas SUCH
"rbe statute of July 2. 1899. generally
known as the Sherman Act. provides that
sverv contract, combination in the form
~ trust or otherwise, or conspiracy In
restraint of trade or commerce among
The several states or with foreign ma
,ions is hereby declared to be Illegal.
Commerce among the states begins Wheh
the subjects thereof begin to move 10
,neir Mace of destination and ends when
,hev are sold. The question, therefore,
Is whether the mine workers comblna-
,ion constitutes a restraint upon such
commerce The view that ii does not is
tos.d nnon the contention that this com
hipation affects only production OF coal
within the states and not shipments OF
coal from one state to another 1T is
submitted that this distinction is without
foundation in the law or the facts.
.The authority in support of this view
pnon which reliance is principally placed
in the case of United States vs.. r. Z.
Knight CO., 1j6 L. s., /. In that case sew
oral sugar reiineries in Pennsylvania had
been united into one organization. The
court held that this consolidation of In
because il affected merely the process of
manufacture and had no necessary effect
upon shipment of the manufactured pro-
duct out of the state. II will be seen
At
from those involved in the present case.
THE coal Of the country is the most
important subject of its interstate com
merce. The Mine Workers Association
consists of combination of persons en-
Moved in the production of coal in many
states of the union. Its object and effect
are TO control the terms upon which this
su ,iect OF interstate commerce may be
produced at all either for state or inter
state shipments. Its direct and necessary
effect is that no coal shall be shipped
anywhere within the country unless il so
permits This combination therefore not
merely restraints but destroys interstate
commerce by preventing the existence of
the subject matter of such commerce OF
the general public interest and import
ance. No more effective or radical re-
straint of Interstate commerce could be
imagined The Delaware * Hudson Co.
was chartered by the state of New York
ON April g. 1873. for the purpose, as ex-
pressed In its charter. of furnishing to
the state of New FORK a supply of coal
found In the state of Pennsylvania. AS
the results of the mine workers organ
iZation this Interstate commerce of this
CORPORATION has been for the time being
In great part destroyed. obviously a
combination which has this direct effect
upon an 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 prohibition
vs.. United States. l1J l.. s, 22I, 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. 2i0) the direct
ana immediate result of the combination
was therefore necessarily a restraint upon
state commerce in respect of articles
manufactured by any of the parties to il
10 be transported beyond the state in
which they were made In Chesapeake
4 OHIO Fuel Co. vs.. United States lis
FED. Rep. 5l0, there was a combination of
All the miners of coal within a 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
products Of manufacture out of the state
save upon terms DICTATED by the parties
10 the combination. Is the fact that a
combination has that direct and neces-
sary effect brings it within the statute.
ms FORM Is OF Importance, for the statute
says that every such cOmbina ton is lille
sal AS already said. the mine workers
.ohoihatlon does not merely restrain in
.rstate commerce but absolutely de
stroys 1t. Can it be seriously claimed
tnat While a combination which restraints
shipments out OF the state be Illegal, one
notr ' WYNN"
III seems very clear, therefore. that a
suit would lie against the members ,T
me United States Mine Workers Asso-
Itauon as a combination i'm restraint of
LII. s.ats commerce within the act Of
July z 1890. and that a preliminary in
Junction would be granted which could
ve enforced by all the power of the ma
uunai government. This precise course
was followed in the Debs case and WA
aupported by the courts not merely on
account of the interference with the mails
s Sut also on the ground of restraint of
surip,hen's from one state to another
Med. Kept. 12D. 1t is submitted that
=, ''s course would be proper i'm the case.
~ ~ w wIll destroy the Illegal combna ton
Dsy"eh the present strike is due The
s,asa. requests that proper action be
"Ayh under the aforesaid statute.
very respectfully, "a