Daily press. [volume] (Newport News, Va.) 1896-current, 1908-02-04
United States Supreme Court Pro,
mu|gales Another Opinion Against
lha Unions.
The BOYCOTT DECLARED NOR LEGAL
In This Instance Ii Was in Viola.
ton of the Anti Sherman Law aud
the Offenders Arc Liable to a Fine
Of s24o'oOo-rhe conneo,Iea, Aa.
Gaze.

WASHINGTON, %. G.. Feb. 3.-To.
day for the third time within a month
The supreme Court OF the United
States promulgated an opinion con.
strung laws adversely TO tho conten-
tons of organized labor.
The first OF the decisions Was ron
dcred on January in the ca.,o of
some railway employees who sought
10 secure damages under what ~
known as tho employers liability
law making railroads responsible for
injuries resulting 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 % ultimo when
The Ertlman arbitration act forbiddlnr
me discharge of employees lecause
they are members OF labor unions. was
also declared to he In violation.
The verdict rendered today WA In
the caae OF Lawler vs. Lowe. the for
mnr member of the Hattera' Union.
and the latter n hat maitpfacturcr oil
Danbuiy.N Conn. The case Involved
the Applicability of the seventh Sec
ton OF the Sherman anti trust law to.
conspilncles by labor unions 10 boy.
colt articles entering into interstate
trade.
Under the terms of that provision
the complaining party may collect
three times the amount OF his losg IL
the charge Is sustained The union
fought the case on the ground that
PLANTATIONS, Int the court. whose opln-
ion was announced by Chief Justice
Fuller. failed to accept this view and
IN effect held that the union could not
be permitted to interfere by boycott
with the free exchange of commerce.
between the states.
There was no dissenting opInion.
The suit was instituted by Lowe 4.
Company In the United States Circuit
Court for the District of Connecticut.
The company alleging damages BY the
lJycott against their factory to the
extent of $4,000 asked for a Judgment
| for $240,060 In accordance with the
terms of the Sherman act. Not only
the members OF the Hatters Union, but
the American Federation of Labor
was included IN the bill In the com
plant 1t was alleged that the labor
organization had undertaken to COM
pei the manufacturers to unionize thei.
factory and 1t was asserted that When
''stANti Al tiiS tue tllllult
matters withdrew ana induced other
employees to do so. This act wns
followed by the declaration OF boy
colt against loves hats and as the
iirui controlled an extensive taade
throughout the country the boycott
extended TO many states. which In
the language Of the bill constituted
combination to limit and restrain
interstate commerce. The Circuit
Court declared that neither the manu-
fact,ire or distribution Of hats is in
terstate in character. The court
| found it necessary to decide whether
a combination which seeks to inter-
fere with both the manufacture and
distribution simultaneously IS one
which directly affects transportation
from one state to another. The ef- y
feet of that decision was favorable to
the union, as it held that the Supreme
Court had not broadened the Sher-
man act so as to make it fit such
condition. Accordingly The complaint
was mismissed on demurrer, and
the dismissal was affirmed Ly the
Court of Appeals.
The decision OF the appellate court
was today in turn overlnled by the
Supreme Court.