The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-02-04
LABOR UNION
 IS THE LOSER Combined to Interfere With Trade. EATERS SECURE DECISION Supreme Court Rules on Boycott Question. Holds Thst the Publication of ~Unfair'
 Articles Restraints cemmerce
 Between the states snd
 !. Unlawful.


 third time within month. the Supreme Court of the United states promulgated an opinion constru.ng' laws adversely to the contention of organized labor
 The first of the decisions was render cd on January in the case of some railway employees who sought to se- cure damages under what is known as the employers liability law, making railroads responsible for injuries re- sulting 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 23rd ultimo. when the Eirdman arbitration act, for bidding the discharge of employees be- cause they are members of labor unions was also declared to be invalid.
 The verdict rendered today was in the case of Lawler vs. Lowe, the for- mer a member of the Matters Union. and the latter hat manufacturer of Danbury. Conn.,. The case involved the applicability of the seventh section of the Sherman antitrust law to conspi- racies by Iabor unions to boycott ar- ticies entering into interstate trade. Under the terms of that provision the complaining party may collect three times the amount of his loss if the charge is sustained
 ! The union fought the case on the ground that the law was .napplicabie to such organizations; but the court. whose opinion was announced by Chief Justice Fuller, failed to accept this view and in effect held that the unions could not be permitted to interfere by boycott with the free exchange Of com- merce between the States. There was no dissenting opinion.
 The decision of the Court was am nounced by Chief Justice Fuller and reversed the holding of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sac0nd Circuit.
 We think" Eaid Ghief Justice Fuller la eosriaalon. akhat a case within the sfatsIf& svas sst sirl ans that tse dsr snnrEer should haFe been, oysfFuled. The decision therefoke reversed the ruling of the lower court and the case was rer1anded with direction to pro- ceed aceordingly.s
 Chief Justice Fuller said;
 '1n our opinion, the combination de- scribed in the declaration is a coubi- nation in restraint of trade or con- merce among the several States in the sense in which those words are used in the act. and the action can be main. tained accordingly. and that 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 How of commerce. between the States. or restricts in that regard the liberty of trade to engage in business.
 Trade Was Restrained.
 sHrhe combination charged falls with in the class of restraints of trade aimed at compelling third parties and strang- CTS invoIuntarily not to engage in the courselof trade except on condition that the combination imposes: and there is no doubt that to quote from the well known work of Chief Justice Erie on trade unions, at common law every person has individuality. and the pub lie has also collectively. a right to re- Quire that the course of trade should be kept free from unreasonable ob- struction But the objection here is to the jurisdiction. because, even conced- ing that the declaration states the case good at common law, 1t is contended that 1t does not state one within the statute. Thus, 1t Is said that the re- straint alleged would operate to en- tirely destroy the defendants business and thereby include intrastate trade as well; that physical obstruction is not alleged. as contemplated; and that de- fendants are not themselves engaged in intrastate trade.
 We think none of the objections are tenable and that they are disposed of by previous decisions of this court"
 Tried to COeree Company.
 The suit was instituted by Loewe and Company In the United States Cir cult Court for the District of Connectt- cut The company alleged damages by boycott against it's factory to the ex- tent of ss0,000 and asked for a judg-- ,nent for t240.000 in accordance with the terms of the sherman act.
 Not only the members of the hatters' union, but the American Federation of Labor, of which the union is suhordi- nate organization, was included in the bIll
 Tn the complaint 1t was alleged that the labor organization had undertaken to compel the manufacturers to uniou- ize their factory. as a large majority of other hat factories in the United States had been forced to do. and 1t was asserted that when they failed in this enort the union matters withdrew and induced other employees to do so.
 This act was followed by the decla- ration of boycott against Loewe's hats wherever they were found, and as the firm controlled an extensive trade throughout the country the boycott ex- tended to many States. which in tho language of the bill constituted a com bination to limit and restrain inter- state commerce..