The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1908-06-13
|PRO |NJU|INCT|0h|sTs
ANSWERED by COUNCIL
Injunction Committee Of San
Francisco Body Makes Long
Report on Subject. s%%
Communication Gives Some Inter
.esting Correspondence and ,.
- - Comments on Same.

To the San Francisco Labor Council:
Your Committee on 1njunctions, to
which were referred several communi-
cations replying to the resolutions
! adopted by the mass meeting Of Ap:il
IS, reports as follows:
In the letter Of Congressman Need
ham, of California, under date of
April 80, the. following appears:
| II note, however, that your resolu-
tions misstate the case, no doubt I'M
| Intentionally, as to the decision rend-
| cred by the supreme court in the hat
| ters' case. The supreme court did not
decide that a labor union, as such, Is
a combination in restraint Of trade or
commerce among the several states,
but it did decide that the actions Of
those who belong to the labor union
in question and the particular facts
alleged, if proven, under the particular
circumstances of the case, would, con-
stitute a combination in restraint of
trade, etc. It is therefore incorrect to
say that the supreme court has ever
intimated or decided that a labor
union, as such, Is a combination in
restraint of trade"
Congressman Needham misquotes
both the language of the resolutions
and the decision Of the supreme court.
That part Of the resolutions to which
he refers is as follows
whereas, This decision is based
upon the Anti Trust Act, under the
terms of which Act the United Hat
tiers of North America are declared to
be: combination in restraint Of trade
or commerce among the several
States and therefore illegal"
The language of the supreme court
in this connection is as follows:
In our opinion, the combination de-
scribed in the declaration Omitted
Haters Of North America) is a combi-
nation in restraint of trade or COM
merce among the several states in
the sense in which those words are
used in the Act, fisherman Anti Trust
Act) and the action can. be maintained
accordingly" .. - = -
It will thus be seen, first, that the
resolutions do not charge that the SUI
preme court has decided that "a. labor
straint of trade but only that the
d
combination in restraint of trade; Sec
ondly, that the resolutions quote the
language Of the supreme court liter
ally in this connection. A perusal Of
the decision fully justit1es the; state
ment contained in the resolutions, that
this decision, if permitted to stand as
a precedent, will have: the effect Of
outlawing the labor movement L
Congressman Needham writes fur
ther as follows: '< -,
II do not think it consistent or wise
public policy to pass any legislation
which will exempt laborers or any
| other class of our citizens from the
! consequences of their own illegal
acts"
This statement begs the question.
| The proposed amendment to the Sher-
man Antitrust Act is not intended
| to, nor will 1t have the effect Of grant,
! ing immunity from the consequences
| of illegal acts, but on the contrary, is
designed to safeguard the labor Or
CARNATIONS and the public at large in
the exercise Of free press, free speech,
peaceable assemblage and the right of
combination. The proposed amend
ment is not in it's nature special legis-
! lation, but is resigned to free the or
CARNATIONS Of labor. from the oper-
ations Of an Act, in itself piece of
special legislation, which was never
intended, by the public at least. to- be
applied to those bodies.
| Congressman Smith, Of California,
after referring to the requests of GER
tain associations of merchants and
manufacturers for relief from the
operations of the Sherman Anti-Trus
Act, says:
Il am sure that would not want to
see labor organizations in any way
outlawed, but it Is an extremely diff
cult matter to find safe place ia
draw the line In their behalf without
| appearing to discriminate against peo-
pie in other walks in life. In nv
opinion, it will not be a good day. for
either labor or agriculture, when it OF
they receive special privileges under
the law" ! -.
Congressman Smith has evidently
fallen into the common error of con
fusing the organizations Of labor with
the combinations formed for business
purposes. The difference between q
combination: formed for the purpose OF
enabling men and women to secure
employment upon the most advat1ta
geous terms, and combination o.
merchants formed for the purpose 81
keeping up prices' is too obvious te
require explanation. Whatever ma,
be the merit or nature Of the requests
made by business combinations, Il
cannot be said that the request Of th<
labor organizations is a request FOL
special privileges On the contrary
the request of organized labor Il
based upon conception Of the com,
mon right OF all men to freely speak
write and M circulate their thought.
upon all questions and to dispose s.