The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1908-02-04
Unanimous Opinion.

The opinion of the court was unani-
nous and no dissenting voice was
presented. "All think" said Chief JUS
tice Fuller in conclusion, that a case
within the statute was set up and that
the demurrer should have been over
ruled. The decision, therefore, re-
versed the ruling of the lower court
and the case was remanded without
direction to proceed accordingly"
Chief Justice Fuller said "In our opin-
ion the combination described in the dec
laration Is combination in re-
straint of trade or commerce among the
several states,' in the sense in which
those words are used in the act, and the
action can be maintained accordingly, and
that conclusion rests on many judgments
of this court to the effect that the act
prohibits any combination whatever to
secure action which essentially obstructs
the free flow of commerce between the
states or restricts in that regard the lib
erty of trade to engage in business
tThe combination charged falls within
the laws of restraint of trade, aimed at
compelling third parties and strangers in
voluntarily not to engage in the course
of trade except on condition that the
combination imposes, and there Is no
doubt that, to quote from the we'll known
work of Chief Justice Erie on trades
unions, at common law every person has
individually, and the public has also col
lectively a right to require that the
course of trade should be kept free from
unrea sonable obstruction But the OBJ
lection here is to the jurisdiction; but
even conceding that the declaration states
the case at common law, 1t is contended
that il does not state one within the stat
utes. Thus it is said the restraint al
legged would operate entirely to destroy
the defendants business and thereby in
clude intrastate trade as well; that physi-
cal obstruction is not alleged as con-
templated. and that defendants are not
themselves engaged in intrastate trade.
1--WE think none of the objections are
tenable. and that they are disposed OF by
previous decisions of this court
How Suit Began.
The suit was instituted by Loewe & Co.
in the United States court for the dis
| trict of Connecticut. The company alleg
| ing damages by a boycott against their
| factory to the extent of $4,000, asked for
| a Judgment for $4,000 in accordance with
| the terms of the Sherman act. Not only
! the members of the hatters union, but
| the American Federation of Labor, or
| which the union is subordinate organ
| ization, was included in the bill In the
| complaint it was alleged that the labor
| organization had undertaken to compel
| the manufacturers to unlonize their FAC
tory as a large majority of other hat
| factories in the United States had been
| forced to do, and it was asserted that
| when they failed in this effort the union
| hatters withdrew and induced other en-
| ployes to do so. This act was followed by
| the declaration of a boycott against
| Loewes hats wherever they were found,
| and as the firm controlled an extensive
| trade throughout the country the boycott
extended to many states which in the
! language of the bill constituted COM
J bination to limit and restrain interstate
| commerce.