The sun., 1908-03-26
LEGAL VIEWS OF THE HEPBURN
BILL.
WhAt DOes seotion Three MsAaF

To THE EDITOR OF TIE SUN-SiT: 1.-THE
bill recently introduced by Mr.. Hepburn
TO modify the Sherman Law OF 1890 con-
tains the following clause;
Nothing in said act. approved July :, 1900 tths
sherman antitrust aetl. or IN this act "a Intended
nor shall any provision thereof hereafter be On.
forced 90 a. 70 interfere With or 10 restrict any
right Of employees 70 combine or 70 contract with
each other. for the purpose OF peaceably obtaining
from employer Satisfactory terms for their labor
or satisfactory conditions Of employment.
may II not be interpreted as sanotloning
ell the defendants did against Loswe ct al,
the plaintiffs In the hAtters case recently
decided by the Supreme Courtl
That case seems to have gone to the
Supreme Court from the Connecticut Fed
eral Circuit Court on the plaintihs COM
plant and the defendants demurrer, by
which the allegations In the complaint were
admitted 10 be true.
The only question certified 10 the Su-
preme Court by the Circuit Court was
whether or not the plaintiffs can on the
complaint maintain an action under the
Sherman law. The answer was In the
affirmative, and the case was remanded TO
the court below for trial and asOertainment
Of damages, II any. inflicted on the plain
tihS. The Supreme Court did not, II should
be said In passing, try the merits OF the
case excepting on facts conceded by the
defendants 10 be true for the purposes OF
the argument.
Mr.. Gompers and his federation claim,
a. l understand, in his recent publication
that all the defendants did IN the Connect
cut case was 10 combine -for the purpose
Of peaceably obtaining from employers sat
isfactory terms for their labor or salts
factory conditions Of employment
And yet the Supreme Court has declared
that 1t found charged In the PLAINTIFF COM
plant, and conceded by the defendants
demurrer, shat defendants formed COM
binaton to directly restrain PLAINTIFF trade;
that the trade to be restrained was inter-
state; that certain means TO attain suchre-
straint we're contrived to be used and EN-
ployed 10 that end; that those means were
80 used and employed by defendants, and
that thereby they injured PLAINTIFF prop
erty and business
II the general scheme Of the Sherman
Law is TO be maintained and the whole Of
the wretched legislation is not 10 be swept
away by the Republican party, ought not
a provso to be inserted in the quoted Hep
burn proposal TO the effect that the work.
men and any others who thus combine
against the employer shall not thereby re-
strain or injure in any way his interstate
trader
only suggest the inquiry and do not wish
TO indicate a reply.
And while my pen il in hand may put
another general question:
II Federal laws make 1t q crime and also
actionable in damages for two interstate
common carriers to combine 10 restrain
the interstate business Of another common
carrier and injure his interstate business,
should not those laws do the same TO men,
bers Of the Federation Of Labor who do the
things set forth in the hatters' complaint
And ought members Of trade unions 10 be
permitted 10 attempt TO monopolize labor
by 'unionizing' all manufacturing, produo-
ing, Transporting. buying and selling9
Why do Mr.. Gompers and the American
Federation Of Labor, il they insist on their
rights thus 10 combine and monopolize,
deny 10 capital similar rightsl And why did
they contend, or do they now contend, that
the prosecution OF the Northern Securities
company was under the Sherman law per-
missible. decent and praiseworthy1
NEW YORK, March rs. INQUIRER.