The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-02-05
ORGANIZED LABOR KNOCKED.
ANOTHER DECISION OF The So.
PREME COURT AGAINST UN-
ION LABOR.
Ct'se OF LOwler Ns. LOwe-Opini.,n
Dased ON Alleged Boytott-!Tl&,
JIatters' Union is Involved.

Jlatters' Union is Involved.
Washington, Feb. s. Today for
the third time within a month the
supreme court Of the United States
promulgated an opinion constituting
laws adversely to the contentious O!
organized labor.
The first or the decisions was rem
dered on Jan. 8. in the case of some
railway employees who sought to Sc
cure damages under what IL known
as "thc employers liability law, =
making railroads responsible fc- in
jurics resulting from the negligence
Of fellow servants. which law the
court held to be unconstitutional
The second important finding in
this line was announced ON the 2ard
ult.. when the Erdman arbitration
act forbiddipg the discharge Of en-
pl"yes. because they are members OF
labor unions. was also declared to
he invalid.
Tho verdict rendered to-day was IL,
the case Of Lowlcr VS.. Lowe, tho
former a member Of the halter =
union aud the latter a hattcr Of Dal.
bury Conn. The case involved the
applicability OF the seventh .cctiou
OF .ho sherman antitrust law in con.
.l'iracles By labor UNIONS t.. boycott
articles entering into Interstate trade.
Under the terms Of that provision the
complaining party may collect three
t'mes the amount &: the loss il the
charge Is sustained. The union
Ought the case on the ground that
the law was inapplicahle to such or
Sanizaticns, but thw cour- WIZ Sc
Cpin On was aiiliC unc=G by Chief JUS
lice Fuller. failed to accept this
View end In effect held that the
unr na coudl not be- permitted t. ir-
terferc by boycott with the free ex.
change of commerce between the
States. There was no dissenting
opinion.
The suit was instituted by Lowe a.
Co. in the United States circui:
court for the district Of Connecticut.
The company alleging damages by
boycott against their factory to the ex-
tent of $4,000, asked for Judgment
for $240.0o0 in accordance with the
terms OF the Sherman act. Not only
the members CT the hattcrs' union
nut the American Federation oe
Labor was included in the bill. In
the complaint II was alleged that the
labor organizations haG undertaken
to compel the manufacturers to
unionize their factory and it was as
serted that when they failed ir this
effort the union hattcrs withdrew and.
induced other employees to do So.
This act was followed by the declara-
tion OF boycott against loves hats
and as the firm controlled an extern
sive trade throughout the country
the boycott extended to many states,
which in the language of the Eli
constituted a commission to limit
and restrain interstate commerce.
The Connecticut court declared that
rs neither the manufacture. nor the
distribution Of hats is Interstate in
character the court found IL neces-
eary to decide whether a commission
which seems to interfere with both
tho manufacture and distribution
Is one which directly
affects transportation from one State
to another. The effect Of that de-
cision was favorable ITO the uninn, as
1t held that the supreme cour; had
not broadened the Sherman act 80 as
to make 1t fit such a condition. Ac.
cordingly the complaint was dismiss
ed on a demurrer, and the dismissal
was affirmed by the court OF appeals.
The decisio3 of the appellate court
was today In turn overruled by the
supreme court.