Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-10-10
FROM WILCOX
Demands That President
Prosecute Miners Union
UNDER SHERMAN LAW
CASES CITED TO SUPPORT HIS
POSITION.
Claims the Debs Case Furnishes Pre-
cedent for Action by the
Federal Authorities.

Federal Authorities.
| NEW YORK, October 10.-David Wilcox,
vice president and counsel for the Delaware
and Hudson Railroad Company, and one of
those present at the recent conference called
| by President Roosevelt at Washington, has
sent to President Roosevelt a letter demand
ing that the federal government proceed
! against the miners organization in the
courts, on the ground that it Is conspiracy
| to prevent interstate commerce.
| Mr.. Wilcox. it Is said on authority. repre-
| sents all the coal operators in this action
and was selected their spokesman.
Text of the Letter.
The letter was made public in this CITY,
together with letter written several
months ago to the President along the same
| lines The letter follows:
NEW YORK, October 8, 1902.
| ITO the President of the United States:
! Sir: Upon June Z last had the honor to
| address a letter to yourself, calling atten-
! ton to the character of the United Mine
| Workers of America. The illegality of that
| organization is fully established by the au-
! thorities to which l then referred, and its
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, 116 Fed.
| Rep. 500 In the Weber case, too, the
court said: 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 national
| government has power to take action
| against it on that account and l, therefore,
desire to respectfully submit some consld-
erations which seem to establish that II
has such power
| ."The statute of July 2. 1890. general
| " 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 commerce among the
| several states or with foreign nations is
| hereby declared to be Illegal. Commerce
among the states begins when the subjects
| thereof begin to move to their place OF des-
! tination and ends when they are sold Inc
| question, therefore. is whether the mine
| workers combination constitutes re-
| straint upon such commerce The view
| that it does not is based upon the conten-
| ton that this combination affects only pro-
duction of coal within the states and not
| shipments of coal from one state to another
! 1t Is submitted that this distinction Is with
out foundation in the law or the facts.
Knight Case Does Not Apply.
The authority in support of this View
! upon which reliance is principally placed in
| the case of the United States versus D. c.
| Knight Company, 156 Z. S., l. In that case
| several sugar refineres in Pennsylvania
! had been united into organization The
| court held that this consolidation of inter
| ests did not come within the statute because
| IL affected merely the process of manufac-
| ture and had necessary effect upon the
! shipment of the manufactured product out
| of the state. 1t will be seen that these
! facts widely different from those in
| volved in the present case
The coal of the country Is the most i'm
portant subject of its interstate commerce.
| The Nine Workers Association consists of
! a combination of persons employed in the
| production of coal in many states of the
| ULion. Its object and effect are to control
| the terms upon which this subject of inter
| state commerce may be produced at all
! either for state interstate shipments
! Its direct and necessary effect Is that no
! coal shall be shipped anywhere within the
! country unless it so permits. This combi-
| nation, 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
| Importance. No more effective or radical
restraint of interstate commerce could be
J imagined. The Delaware and Hudson COM
pany was chartered by the state of New
! York on April %, 1898. for the purpose, as
| expressed in its charter. of furnishing to
! the state of New York a supply of coal
| found in the state Of Pennsylvania. AS the
result OF the mine workers organization
| 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 esta blished
| 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 prohibit on of
the statute. In Addyston Pipe Company vs.
|
ton Of manufa cturers within certain states
which restrained shipments by the part 'es
| out of their respective states In competition
| with each other; the court said (p. 24O) the
! direct and Immediate result of the comb ma
| ton was. therefore. necessarily a r, straint
upon state commerce In respect OF art eli
! manufactured by any Of the parties to it
to be transported beyond the state in which
! they We're made In Chesapeake and Ohio
/ Fuel Co. VS.. L. S., 115 Fed Rep, $40, 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 bust
| ness sh pped 10 other states:
| Both of these combina lions were held un-
| lawful for the reason that they restrained
| the movement of the products of manufac-
! ture out of the state save upon terms die
! tated by the parties to the combination II
! the fact that a combination has that direct
and necessary effect brings 1t within the
| the statute says that every such combina-
| ton Is Illegal. AS already said the mine
| workers combination does not merely re-
| strain interstate commerce, but absolutely
| destroys 1t. Can it be seriously claimed
| that while combination which restraints
| shipments out of the state would be lille
| gal. one which absolutely prevents them
would not? Manifestly the greater includes
| the less. and combination which directly
| and immedia tely destroys interstate COM
| merce by preventing the existence of It's
subject matter is quite as illegal as one
which merely restraints the shipment of
such matter out of the state. Otherwise
combination which restrained Interstate
| commerce would be unlawful. while one
which destroyed it would be beyond the
| reach of the law. 1t is submitted that the
national jurisdiction Is subject to no such
| limitation.
Thinks Suit is Practicable
| 1T seems very clear, therefore, that a
| suit would lie against the members of the
| United Mine Workers Association as a
| combination in restraint of interstate COM
merce within the act of July g 1880 and
| that a preliminary Injunction would be
| granted which could No enforced nv, III -,