United labor bulletin., 1910-07-21
A. r. OF. L BRIEF.
What the Brief Of the A. F. Of l. Says
In Intervening In the Hatters' Case.

Hatters' case, permission was obtained
for the American Federation of Labor
to intervene and present a brief in addi-
ton to the one presented by the attor-
neys for the United Hatters of North
America Several months passed. Wide
spread interest has been manifested in
the contents of that brief, and inasmuch
as it is difficult to obtain copies thereof
and to satisfy the interest OF our friends
and students. we publish it herewith. 1t
is as follows:
Supreme Court OF the United States.
October Term, 1907. No. 3s9. Diet
rich Loewe ct al. VS.. Martin Lawlor
ct al.
Brief of Thomas Carl Spelling on Be-
half of the American Federation of
Labor, Samuel Gompers, and Frank
Morrison, Intervenors.
On certificate from and writ of GER
tiorari to the United States Circuit Court
of Appeals for the second circuit.
Certificate filed July IL, 1907, certi-
orari and return filed October 21, 1907.
The complaint is profuse and volum-
inous as is also the demurrer. In pleas
ant contrast we have an opinion by the
district Judge which is brief, pointed,
and concise.
1. 1t will be seen that while the plain
tiffs allege in the complaint in general
terms, injury to property and business"
(Par. 81, and to business and property"
(Par. 22). yet circumstantially and spe-
officially they differentiate the portion of
their bushes soutside the state of Con-
necticut from that within that state, and
Intentionally and industriously show
that they claim no damage for injury to
the Connecticut portion, but only to that
beyond that state; that is to say, to
what they designate as plaintiffs inter
state commerce" The term is varied.
Sometimes it is spoken of as plaintiffs
Interstate trade" Interstate business"
etc.; but the intent to rely upon injury
resulting from restricting or narrow
ing" interstate commerce is fully ex-
pressed and is as obvious as any single
feature of the case made by the plead
ing.
Now, it is too well settled that the
common law policy inimical to restraint
of trade had no place in Federal juris-
prudence prior to the enactment of the
act of July 2, 1890, known as the Anti
Trust Act, to require the citation of au-
thority in support of the proposition and
one of the questions to be decided here
"a question met at the very threshold
of discussions, what is interstate COM
merce? And the answer-part of it at
least-is. that it is an ideal thing, with
out form or substance, unconnected with
any of its subjects, agencies, or instru-
mentalities. 1t is even distinct from the
contracts which are made as basis of
interstate commerce. In short, the term
is an abstraction, just as is the term
Jurisprudence" We have this statute
to protect interstate commerce from a
certain species Of Interference, Just as
We have a statute to prevent obstruction
of the administration of justice (Rev.
Stat, secs. 5604 ct seq.). Neither JUS
tice nor interstate commerce is suscepti-
BILE of ownership or control by any indi-
vidual. In a certain sense they both be-
long to the nation; but even here it
would be more appropriate to say that
they pertain to the nation or to all the
people of the nation. Hence We see the
germinal fanacy of the complainant in
this case. The action is based on the
untenable theory that plaintiffs own, or
rightully control, some part Of inter
state commerce. whereas, in fact and
/
under which the action is brought to for
bid and prevent any such ownership or
control, and for this reason plaintiffs
theory is self-destructive-
. That the statute gives an action
to those injured by the agreements and
combinations specified therein, and not
otherwise, needs no argument. The
things alleged to have been done by the
defendants is not one of such agree
ments or combinations. The conduct of
the defendants. however, reprehensibly
it may be viewed, has no direct or indi-
rect tendency to restrain or even OBJ
struct interstate commerce if the fore
| going definition or view of its true ma
ture be correct. But l will not elab-
crate this head of argument, and will
merely refer to the opinion of the
learned district judge in this case in
support of my contention hereunder
(see Transcript, folio 4S4T).
The idea which appears to have dom
mated the plaintiffs in the bringing of
this action was that the extent and mag
nitude of the defendants operations con-
stituted an element TO be considered in
determining the quality of the alleged
injury; but upon like reasoning. it would
be difficult to place a limit to the num-
ber of actions which might be brought
under the act. The same theory would
support an action by distillers of. and
wholesale dealers in. intoxicating Ii
Quors, against temperance organizations
whose efforts tend to reduce sales and
diminish the volume of trade.
The American Federation of Labor,