The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1908-02-04
THIRD HARD BLOW
I D MON
LABOR
TO BOYCOTT A MANUFACTURING
CONCERN DOING INTERSTATE
COMMERCE IS A CRIME, HOLDS
U. S. SUPREME COURT.

WASHINGTON Feb. 4.--For the
third time within a month. the su'
preme court of the United States has
promulgated an opinion constituting
laws adversely TO the contentious of
organized labor.
The first Of the decisions was rem
dered on Jan 6, In the case OF some
railway employees VINO soaght to Sc
cure damages under what rs known
as the employers liability law" max
ing railroads responsible for injuries
resulting from the negligence OF fell
low.servants, which law the court held
10 be unconstitutional.
The second important finding In this
line was announced on Jan. ~, when
the Erdman arbitration act, forbidding
the discharge OF employees because
they are members OF labor unions, was
also declared 10 be invalid.
Verdict In Hatter's Case.
The verdict rendered yesterday. was
I'm the case OF Lawler VS.. Loewe. the
former member of the Hatters
union, and the latter hat manufac-
turer, OF Danbury, Conn. The case
involved the applicability Of the sew
enth section of the Sherman antitrust
law to conspiracies by labor unions 20
boycott articles entering into inter
state trade.
Under the terms OF that provision
the complaining party may collect
three times the amount of his loss IL
the charge Is sustained. The union
fought the case on the ground that the
law was inapplicable to such organl.
cations; but the court, whose opinion
was announced by Chief Justice Full
Ter, failed 10 accept this view, and In
effect held that the unions could not
be permitted TO interfere by boycott
with the free exchange of commerce
between the states. There was no
dissenting opinion.
After quoting many precedents and
reciting the complaint In the case,
Chief Justice Fuller continued:
The averments here are that there
was an existing interstate sts,. traaso be-
states and that for the direct purpose
OF destroying such Interstate trafiic. de-
PENDANTS combined not merely TO pre-
btui pi'iinsihS lioiil iihiiuiANNuiilB q
ticles then and there intended for
transportation beyond the state. but
also TO prevent the vendors from re-
selling the hats which they had I'M
ported from Connecticut. or from fur
Their negotiating with plaintiffs for the
purchase and transportation or such
hats from Connecticut TO the various
places OF destination
So that, although some other means
whereby the Interstate traffic was 10
be destroyed We're acts within state
as part OF thir obvious purpose and
effect beyond the scope OF federal au-
-tharitx- still "a we haze seen. the acts
must be considered as n whole, and
the plan Is open TO condemnation. not
withstanding negligible amount of
Interstate business might be affected
In carrying IL out.
II the purposes OF the combination
were, as alleged, to prevent any inter
that the means operated at one end be-
fore physical transportation COM
menced at the other end after the ply
steal transportation ended, was imma-
teriai Nor can the act In question he
held applicable because the defendants
were not themselves engaged In inter-
state commerce.
The act made no distinction between
classes. IL provided that every con-
tract, combination or conspiracy In re-
straint OF trade was illegal The rec
forts were made TO exempt by legisla-
ton organizations OF farmers and la
borers from the operation of the act
and that all these EFFORTS failed. 80
that the act remained as we have IL
before us.