New-York tribune., 1908-02-04
THE BOYCOTT ILLEGAL.
IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE.
L. S. Sapreme Court 4pplies Anti-
Trust act to Labor Union Case.

washington. Feb S.-To-day, for the third
time within a month, the Supreme Court OF
the United States delivered opinion con-
s-rr,ing laws adversely to the contentious OF
orsanized labor. The first decision was on jan
nary 6 in the Of railroad employees
who sought damages under the employers lia-
b,litv law, making railroads responsible for in
.u-ies resulting from the negligence Of fellow
servants. This law the court held to be uncon-
,,,,,ttonaI The second was announced on
January ~ when the Erdman arbitration act
sa-b;ddirg the discharge Of employees because
,,sx aqe members Of labor unions. was de-
ciared invalid
The decision to-day in the case Of Law
,.- AGAINST Loewe, the former member of the
MATTERS Union and the latter a hat manu-
.,r-,;rer. OF Danbury. Conn. The case involved
-ha appiicability OF Section 4 Of the Sherman
s-.t-tr,,st law conspiracies by labor unions
. hovoott articles entering into interstate
80 Under the terms of that provision the
,o,onlaining party may collect three times the
.-,ouut Of his loss If the charge is sustained
Tho r,-ion fought the case on the ground that
.,s law was inapplicahle to such organizations.
49, the court. in opinion by Chief Justice
r,,rer refused TO accept this view, and held
a. eject that unions could not be permitted to
.-s-fe-e by boycott with the free exchange OF
.o---,e-ce between the states. There was no
dissenting opinion
UNANIMOUS OPINION OF COURT
:, his opinion Chief Justice Fuller said:
r, our opinion the combination described IN
80 declaration is a combination in restraint
.--a5e or commerce among the several states"
o. &c. saT1se in which those words are used in
- arr and the action can be maintained ac-
.a-dinsiy snd that conclusion rests on many
.sc-7ents OF this court, 10 the effect that the
- on-oh hits ary combination whatever to Sc
rr-e action which essentially obstructs the free
fow Of commerce between the states. or re-
s--icfs in that regard the Hoefty OF uaoeT 10
engage in business.
sc combination charged falls within the class
~ restraints OF trade aimed al compelling third
-,.s ., and strangers tnvoluntarily 70
80 IN the course Of trade except on conditions
nat the combination imposes; and there Is no
sa,,t- that 10 quote from the We'll known work
- chief Justice Earle on trade unions: AT
ro-,non law every person has individually and
the public has also collectively right 10 require
+hat the course Of trade should be kept free from
unreasonable obstruction But the objection
ta-a Is 70 the Jurisdiction because. even con-
ce6tng that the declaration states the case gooo
= coe,roo7 law II IS contended that II does not
.-s1e one within the statute Thus. II is said
trat the restraint alleged would operate entirety
% destroy the defendants business and thereby
incIuda furrastate trade as well; that physlcal
abstraction is not alleged contemplated and
that defendants are not themselves ensageo n
Iu--astate trade. We think none OF the Cd,
sections are tenable and that they are disposed
~ BIZ previous decisions OF this court
After quoting many precedents and reciting
-he complaint in the case Chief Justice Fuller
continued.
The averTnenrs here are that there was an eX-
lsting interstate traffic between plsintins ano
citizens OF other states and that for the direct
purpose of destroying such interstate traffic de-
PENDANTS combined not merely to prevent PLAIN
rifs from manufacturing articles then and there
}n-ep6e5 for TRANSPORTATION beyond the state but
also prevent the vendees from reseIilns lhe
hats whic: they had imported from Connecticut
CT from further negotiating with plaintifs Tor
he
from Connecticut TO the various places OF desu-
nation So that although some other means
whereby the interstate traffic was 10 be 0e-
Ftrnved we're acts within state and some OF
them were in themselves. part OF their op-
rious purpose and effect, beyond the scope OF
federal authority. STILL as We have seen the acts
must be considered as q whole and the plan Is
open 70 condemnation. notwithstanding a neg
isgbie amount OF iEtrastate business might os
sFected iu carrying II out II the purposes or
the combination were. alleged 10 prevent any
interstate TRANSPORTATION all the fact that the
means ,5-erated at one end before physical
transportation commenced at the other END after
tie physical transportation ended was 1Inrna-
terial Nor the act in question be held ap-
pcahIa because the defendants were not them
selves Engaged in interstate commerce. The act
MADE no distinction between classes. 1t pro-
vded that every" contract combination or con-
Fpiracy in restraint Of trade was Illegal Ihe
records of Congress show that several efforts
were made 70 exempt by legislation organiZa-
tons Of farmers and Iaborers from the operation
of the act and that all these efforts failed. so
that the act remained as We have II before US
Daniel Davenport Of Bridgeport, Conn, asso-
ciated with James NJ. Beck. Of New York City
as counsel for the plaintiffs. made the following
statement regarding the decision:
The United States Supreme Court to-day py
IS decision in the case OF Loewe against LaWlor
declared Illegal and criminal under the sherman
antitrust act all combinations OF Worklnglnen
70 boycott the Interstate business OF manufactur-
uho sell their goods il other states than tflat
of The manufactures. So long as the American
Federation Of Labor and other labor unions re
sor- IN The boycott weapon OF attack upon
tn Interstate business OF manufacturers tneg
are illegal and criminal combinations ano III Is
the outy OF the Department Of Justice 70 proceed
against them the as against Illegal ana
criminal combinations OF capitalists HE court
holds that the Sherman antitrust act apIileS 10
combinations Of workingmen and OF capitalists
and for the same reasons This decision pears
GU the most important claims in the case OF the
Buck Steve and Range Company, OF st LOUIS
against the American Federation of Labor, IN
which an Injunction was recently granted by
Justice Gould in the Supreme Court OF the l'iS-
tFlct of Columbia
When asked for an expression Of opinion in
regard the decision Samuel Gompers, presi-
dent of the American Federation Of Labor. de-
cHne6 20 make any comment AT this time
HISTORY OF THE CASE
The suit was instituted by Loewe e. Co in the
United States Circuit Court for the district or
Connecticut. The company. alleging damages OF
Sslgso by boycott against its factory, asked
FOR Judgment for S24ooco. in accordance with
he terms Of the Sherman act. The Hatters
Uuion and the American Federation Of Labor
~ which the union subordinate organiza-
don were named as defendants The complaint