Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1908-02-06
ORGANIZED LABOR
IS Held AMENABLE TO The ANTI
TRUST Law.
Third Adverse Decision of the United
States Supreme Court Within a
r1Onfh. Unions Held Liable for
Damages in Boycott Case Under
Sherman Law.

WASHINGTON. Feb. 3.-Today for ila
third time within a month, the supren
court OF the United States promulgated
an opinion constituting avs adversely to
the contentious of organized labor The
first OF the decisions was rendered on
January 6, in the case OF some railway
employees who sought to secure damages
under what is known as the employers
liability law, making railroads RESPONSE
BILE for injuries resulting from the negli-
genre OF fellow servants, which law the
court held to be unconstitutional. The
second important finding in this line was
announced on the 23d instant, when the
Erdman arbitration act, forb dding the
discharge of employees because they are
members OF labor unions, was declared
invalid. The verdict rendered TODAY
was in the case OF Loewe versus Lawler,
the latter member OF the Hatters'
Union, and the former hat manufac.
tu'er of Danbury, Conn. The case in
volved the applicability of the seventh
section OF the Sherman antitrust law to
conspiracles by labor unions to boycott
articles entering into interstate trade.
Under the terms OF that provision the
complaining party may collect three
times the amount OF his loss if the charge
is sustained. The union fought the
case on the ground that the law was in.
applicable to such organizations but the
court, who's, opinion was announced by
Chief Justice Fuller, failed to accept this
view, and in effect held that the unions
could not be permitted to interfere by
boycott with the free exchange OF com.
merce between the states. There was
no dissenting opinion.
After quoting many precedents and re.
citing the complaint in the case, Chief
Justice Fuller continued:
"The averments. here are that there
was an existing interstate traffic between
plaintiff and citizens of other sta .es, and
that for the direct purpose OF destroying
such interstate traffic defendants conn.,
bined not merely to prevent plaintiffs
from manufacturing articles then and
there intended for transportation beyond
the state, but also to prevent the vendees
from reselling the hats which they had
imported from Connecticut, or from fur
ther negotiating with plaintiffs for the
purchase and transportation of such hats
from Connecticut to the various places
OF destination. So that, although some
OF the means whereby the interstate
traffic was to be destroyed were acts
within a state and some of them were in
themselves az a part of their obvious
purpose and effect beyond the scope of
federal authority, still, az we have seen,
the acts must be considered as a whole.
and the plan is open to condemnation,
Notwithstanding negligible amount of
interstate business might be affected in
carrying it out.
"If tue purposes of the combination
were, as alleged, to prevent any inter-
etate transportation at all, the fact that
the means operated at one end before
physical transportation commenced at
the other end after the physical ended
was immaterial. Nor can the act in
question be held inapplicable because
the defendants were not themselves en-
gagged in Interstate commerce. The act
made no distinction between classes. It
provided that every contract, combina-
tion and conspiracy in restraint of trade
was illegal"