Bisbee daily review., 1908-02-09
S no dissenting opinion. The d ion of the lower court is reverse the case remanded.
 Wants Government to Act.

Daniel Davenport, of Bridgeport, Conn.,, associated with James NJ Beck, of New York City as counsel for the plaintiffs, made the following statement regarding the effect of the decision: The United States Su- preme Court today by it's decision in the case of Loewe vs. Lawlor, de- clared illegal and criminal under the Sherman antitrust act all combina- tons of workingmen to boycott the interstate business of manufacturers who sell their goods in other states than that of manufacture. So long as the American Federation of La bor and other labor unions resort 10 the boycott as a weapon of attack upon the interstate business oS man. ufacturers they are illegal and crim- inal combinations, and it is the duty os the Department of Justice of pro- ceed against them the same as against illegal and criminal comDinauons of capitalists. The court holds that the Sherman antitrust act applies to combinations of workingmen and of capitalists and for the same reasons. This decision bears out the most i'm portant claims in the case of the Buck Stove and Range Company Of St. Louis against the American Fed eration of Labor, in which an in- junction was recently granted by Justice Gould in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia"
 Holds Boycott Illegal.
 Chief Justice Fuller in delivering the opinion of the court said: Tn our opinion the combination described in the declaration is a combination in restraint of trade of commerce among the several states in the sense in which those words were 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 what ever to secure action which essential ly obstructs the free flow Of com merce between the states. or restricts, in that regard, the liberty of trade to engage in business.
 "The combination charged falls within the class of restraints of trade aimed at compelling tlrra par ties and strangers involuntarily not to engage in the course of trade ex- cept on conditions that the combina- ton imposes; and there is no doubt that, to quote from the weil-known work of Chief Justice Erie on made unions, at common law every per son has individually, and the public has also collectively, right to re q1ire that the course of trade should be kept free from unreasonable ob- struction.' But the objection aere is to the jurisdiction, because. even con- ceding that the declaration states case good at common law, it is con tended that 1t does not state within the statute.
 "We think none of the objections is tenable, and that they are disposed of by previous decisions of this court"
 Says Law Fits the Case.
 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 traffic be- tween plaintiffs and citizens of other ! states and that for the direct purpose of destroying such interstate traffic 1 defendants combined not merely to l prevent plaintiffs from manufacturing | articles then and there intended for l transportation beyond the state, but 1 also to prevent the vendors from | reselling the hats which they had | imported from Connecticut, or from | further negotiating with piasHuffs | for the purchase and transportation of such hats from Connecticut r., tne | various places of destination So | that, although some other cans | tae interstate traffic IS to | be destroyed were acts wit a state and some of them we-s in themselves, as a part of their vIous and effect, beyond the scope |