The sun., 1908-02-04
HARD BLOW AT THE BOYCOTT
CONSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT or
TRADE, SAYS THE COURT.
rmpIoyer Can Maintain n suit Under the
sherman Act. the supreme Court says
ana Recover From Labor Unions Three
fold the Amount OF Damages sust aimed.


fold the Amount Of Damages Sustained.
N.,sUINgToN, Feb. 3-The most crush
INC blow ever given organized labor was
deGyered by the Supreme Court to-day,
when by a unanimous bench It held that
labor's most formidable weapon, the boy
colt was illegal, being in violation OF the
Federal antitrust law where IL injured
merchandise going into other States than
that in which Il was manufactured. As
rractically all manufactures do enter into
interstate commerce the effect Of the deci-
sion is practically to prohibit the use OF
the boycott.
Coming as il does on the heels Of the re-
Cant decisions Of the Supreme Court in
declaring void the employers Inability act
and the section Of the ErdmaDn law pro-
hibiting discrimination against members
of labor organizations by railroads, to-
rether with the action Of the Federal courts
Of the District OF Columbia in enjoining the
American Federation OF Labor from pub
fishing the Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany in its unfair list, the result has COM
pletely changed the legal status OF the
labor unions. and what is sometimes called
the tyranny OF labor no longer exists.
To-days decision in effect not only declares
the American Federation a trust 50 far as
its boycotts are concerned but also holds
that those who are injured by such methods
can recover from the individual members
Of the organization for threefold the dam
ages sustained thereby, as provided under
the Sherman antitrust act.
The case was brought In the Federal
Court In Connecticut by d. 4. Lowe h Co,
hat manufacturers OF Danbury, Conn,
against Martin Lawler and 200 other men,
hers Of the local hatters' union to recover
$4,000 damages to the firms trade by reason
Of the boycott insuguTated by the union as
the result Of the refusal Of the manufac-
turers to unionize their factory. The bill
Of complaint alleges that the concerted
efforts Of the union had compelled seventy
of the largest hat factories Of the United
States to grant the union demands, while
twelveS including the Lowe factory; were
open shops It is further alleged that the
Loves employed go persons, that their
yearly output was worth slO0. 900, Of which
all but $4,000 went outside the State Of
Connecticut
The details OF the boycott are set forth.
the firm being published In the unfair list
Of tho Journal of the United HGtters Of
North America and the American FedeYG-
honisf, and Of the action OF the Central
unions of the American Federation OF
Labor in various cities OF the country in
serving notice on those who handled hats
manufactured by the Danbury concern
that they also would be boycotted II they
continued to sell the goods A conspicuous
instance Of this mentioned in the bill was
in San Francisco, the resolutions adopted
by the unions there and notices served by
them on wholesalers and retailers who
bought Of the loves being set out in full,
accompanied by affidavlts.
The trial court sustained the demurrer
interposed by the labor union, that the
sherman antitrust law did not cover such
an action and the Loves took the case to
the Federal Court of Appeals, which with
the object OF expediting a final decision
certified the question to the supreme Court
without passing upon IL. The supreme
Court, owing to the importance OF the
matter, advanced the case out OF turn and
also brought up by writ of Certiorari the
entire record in the case.
The unanimous opinion Of the Court was
delivered by Chief Justice Fuller. Quoting
the first. second and seventh sections Of the
Sherman law. declaring illegal every COM
bination, in the form Of trust or otherwise
or conspiracy in restraint Of trade among
the several States, providing penalties for
those who monopolize or attempt to
monopolize or combine or cOnspire with any
other person OF persons TO mOnopOlize any
part OF such trade and declaring that three
fold damages may be recovered by -any
person who shall be injured in his business
or property by any other person or corpora
clared to be unlawful by this act, and setting
forth at length the bill Of complaint. the
Chief Justice declares:
In our opinion the combination described
In the declaration is n combination in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several States" in the sense in which those
words are used in the act. and the action
conclusion rests on many judgments OF this
court to the effect that the act prohibits
any combination whatever to secure action
which essentially obstructs the free flow
Of commerce between the States or restricts
in that regard the liberty of a trader to en-
gage I'm business. The combination charged
falls within the class Of restraints of trade
aimed at compelling third parties and
strangers invOluntarily not to engage in the
course Of trade except on conditions that
ths combination imposes. and there is no
doubt that TO quote from the well known
work of Chief Justice Erie on trade uniOnsJ
"at common law every person has individu-
atty, and the public also has collective
. right to require that the course OF trade
should he kept from unreasonable Obst rue
ton" But the objection here Is TO the iuris-
d,tiou. because even cOnceding that the,
declaration states a case good at common
law il is contended II does not state one
within the statute. Thus IL is said that the
restraint alleged would operate to entirely
destroy defendants business and thereby
include intrastate as well; that physical
obstruction Ia not alleged cont emplated
and that defendants are not themselves
engaged in interstate trade We think
none OF these objections are tenable aud
that they are disposed Of by previous deci-
slous Of this U7,ITt.
Chief Justice Fuller then quotes from
the decisions in the transmissOuri freight.
the Joint traffic association and the Northern n
Securities cases as showing that the SheT-
man law had a broader application than
the prohibition of restraints OF trade un-
lawful at common law, and from the beef
trust cases in which the size of the con-
spiracy made the violation Of the law more
conspicuous. and yet the same thing made
IL impossible to fasten the PRINCIPAL fact
70 n certain time and place. Referring to
the courts decision in the Addyston Pipe
case. that any combination which directly
operated not alone upon the manufacturer
but upon the sale, transportation and
delivery OF the article of interstate COM
merce by preventing or restricting its
sale. thereby regulated interstate com
mPrce. and to the California ii p case the
opinion proceeds:
Tho ayerments here are that there MAS an