The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1916-09-15

tically every question before the couFI
for cons Iteration. This opinion WAS oe-
Hughos became a member Of tho sp-
promo Court. Practically every primer
pie in the case had been sett led before
any participation IN The case by JuslIce
Hughes. The undisputed facts IN the
case were that the United Hatters OF
North America and the Federation Of
Labor had circulated lists OF un1als
dealers" intended TO put the ban upon
those whose names appeared thereit'
among large numbers OF possible Gus
toners throughout different states or
the Union, and in this manner practl'
cally destroy the business or the manu-
facturcrs. Upon these facts Justice
Holmes in the opinion. 235 Y. 5. 5"4'
said: ,,,
ness of Justice not 10 see that many
branches OF tile United Hatters ana
the Federation OF Labor to poth OF
which the defendants belonged IN
pursuance of Il plan einanatlnS from
headquarters made use or SuCh llStS'
and the primary and secondary BOY
colt in their effort TO subdue mo
plaintiffs 10 their demands Inc
union label Was used and strike OF
the plaintiffs employees was ordered
and Carried out 10 the same end. ana
the purpose 10 break up the plain
titf3' commerce affected the quality
OF tho acts. Locwc V. Lawton 20S
l.. 5. "a. a99. We agree with the
Circuit Court OF Appeals that
combination and conspiracy rorold-
den by the statute were proved ana
that the question is narrowed 10
the responsibility Of the defendant"
for what Wis done by the SANCTION
and procurement OF the socletlcS
above named"
Justice HuImcS, reviewing the instrtc-
lions to the jury and the evidence ad-
duccd uaon the trial. said in conclusion:
Decision by Justice Holmes.
And, in short. neither the arGu-
mcnl nor the perusal OF the rolumi-
nous brief Tor the plaintiffs in error
shows that they suffered any IN
Justice or that there was an error
requiring the judgment 10 be re-
ScrSGd.
Judge Alton Is. Parker. late demo-
cratic candidate tor President made the
oral argument and filed the rolumlnouS
briet referred 10 BY the court.
Affirmancc OF the decision by the CIR
cult Court of Appeals. in Deccm OR.
1913, led to inserting Section IN the
Act amending the Sherman ANTITRUST
expressly legaliZed. and in effect eN-
clidcd from the provisions Of the AMI
Trust Law as TO who should be- Naolc
in damages for violation of the Act.
The persistent. CONTINUOUS ana sue
and their chiefs to obtain this amehd-
mcnl, whereby labor unions were OK
cludcd from liability for damages re-
sullinE from violation Of the antitrust
law, must be considered either as con-
r,ssion of the righteousness or me
Judgment in the matters case. or that
these unions sought exemption from Ia
bility tor wrongful act; and 10
charge Justice Hughes with antaeon-
ism 10 united labor, or with having par
licipated in u decision that In any man
Nor denied 10 united labor any possible
right to which they were entitled upon
the grounds that he participated In the
final decision Of the hatters case. IS an
appeal to prejudice without the slight
est foundation for such a charge. Man
ifcst!y. so from the fact that the opln-
ion settling the case by Chief Justice
Fuller, was rendered TWO years before
Mr.. Hughes became justice.
Ths Arizona Case.
The Arizona Anti-Allen Law Case:
Under the initiative provisions OF the
Constitution of Arizona there was ADOPT
ed a measure which the Governor pro
claimed a law on December -, IVA.
which provided that any employer VINO
employed moro than five workers at
any one time in the State OF Arizona
reGaruless OF kind or class OF work, or
son OF workers. should employ not less
than so yer cent qualified electors o!
native born citizens or the lnltcG
States or some subdivision thereof. and
that any person. corporation or partner
ship found guilty Of violating. the ACT
should be guilty OF a misdemcaror. and
upon conviction subjected In Il fine OF
not less than One Hundred Dollars and
Imprisonment OF not less than thirty
DAYS. One Mike Rdich. & native OF Aus
triA, and an inhabitant of Arizona, Sut
not qualified voter, was q cook In,
restaurant of one William TruaN, who
had nine employees. OF whom seven were
ncithe: native born citizens or the
United States nor qualified electors.
After tho Act was passed Raich was in
formed by his employer that solely by
reason of the requirements OF the ACT
he would ~ discharged. Thcreupon
Eaich filed his bill in the District Court
Of The United States for the District of
Arizona. alleging that tho Act denied
10 him the equal protection OF tho laws.
and hence was contrary 10 the Four