The Oskaloosa herald., 1908-02-06
BLOW FOR
ORGANIZED LABOR
SUPREME COURT DECIDES CASE
AGAINST HATTERs' UNION.
BOYCOTT HELD ILLEGAL
Interference with Free Exchange o.
Commerce Between the States
Must Not Be Permitted,
Says Tribunal.

Washington, Feb. 4.-Monday for
the third time within month the SUI
preme court of the United States pro-
mulgated an opinion constituting laws
adversely to the contentious Of or
ganized labor.
The first of the decisions was rem
dered on January in the case OF
some railway employees who sought to
secure damages under what is known
as the employers law, making rail-
roads responsible for injuries result
ing from the negligence of fellow
servants, which law the court held to
be unconstitutional The second i'm
portant finding in this line was an
riounced on January 20, when the
Erdman arbitration act forbidding the
discharge of employees because they
are members of labor unions was also
declared to be invalid
tsatters' Union Defeated.
The verdict rendered Monday was
in the case of Lawler VS.. Loewe, the
former member of the Hatters'
union and the latter hat manufac-
turer of Danbury, Conn. The case in
volved the applicability Of the seventh
section of the Sherman antitrust law
to conspiracies by labor unions to boy
colt articles entering into interstate
trade. Under the terms Of that pro-
vision the complaining party may col
lect three times the amount of his
loss if the charge is sustained.
The union fought the case on the
ground that the law was inapplicable
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 inter
fere by boycott with the free exchange
of commerce between the states.
There was no dissenting opinion.
Case Within the Statute.
I'VE think" said Chief Justice Full.
Ter in conclusion, that a case within
the statute was set up and that the
demurrer should have been overruled.' .
The decision, therefore, reversed the
ruling of the lower court and the case
was remanded with direction to pro
coed accordingly. Chief Justice Fuller
said: In our opinion the combination
described in the declaration is com.
bin.tion in restraint of trade or com.
merce among the several states In the
sense in which those words are used
in the act, and the action can be main.
tanned accordingly, and that conclu'
sion rests on many judgments of this
court, to the effect that the act pro.
hibits any combination whatever to Sc
cure action which essentially obstructs
the free flow of commerce between the
states, or restricts in that regard, the
liberty of trade to engage in bust
ness.
"Ahithin Restraint Class"
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 con
ditions 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 com
mon law every person has individually
and the public has also collectively, q
right to require that the course OF
trade should be kept free from unrea
sonable obstruction, But the objection
here is to the Jurisdiction, because
even conceding that the declaration
states the case good at common law, il
is contended that it does not state one
within the statute. Thus, it is said
that the restraint alleged would op
eerate to entirely destroy the de
PENDANTS business and thereby include
interstate trade as we'll; that physical
obstruction is not alleged as contem
plated; and that defendants are not
themselves engaged in interstate
trade.
I'VE think none of the objections are
tenable and that they are disposed OF
by previous decisions of this court"