The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1916-12-01
HUGE DAMAGES INVOL WE'D

More Than a Million Dollars Claimed
by Coal Company-Case Shows Vital
Need of Exemption of Organized La
man Anti trust Law.
Another Danbury hatters' case, and
upon a larger scale, appears to be in
volved in Dowd against the United
Mine Workers, recently decided by the
United States court of appeals of the
eighth circuit, says the Survey. Dam
ages to the amount of $1,250,000 are
sought under the Sherman antitrust
law on account of an alleged conspir
acy involving a strike accompanied by
destruction Of property. The sum sued
for Is more than five times as great as
In the hatters' case.
The plaintiff is Dowd. the receiver of
nine coal companies of the Hartford
valley in western Arkansas, which
were controlled by the Bache Denan
interests. In 1914 these companies be-
came involved in struggle with the
United Mine Workers. which eulmlnat.
ed In the almost complete destruction
Of one Of their mines by mob. In an
swer to the suit the United Mine Work
ers filed demurrer, which was held to
be good by the federal district court.
The circuit court of appeals. however,
reversed the decision. 1t holds that in
terstate commerce has been interfered
with and that the plaintiffs bin states
a proper cause of action.
Now the United Mine Workers have
taken an appeal to the supreme court
of the United States.
According to Edwin e. Wttte, in
structor in economics at the University
OF Wisconsin, this case shows much
more clearly than ever before the ex-
tent to which the Sherman act goes in
its application to labor disputes.
The principal allegation in the
plaintiffs bill. he writes to the Sur
vey, "is the same as that made by d.
e. Loewe & co. in the Danbury hat
ters' case This is to the effect that
the defendants conspired to prevent
the plaintiff from engaging in inter
state commerce. The means used to
carry out this conspiracy, however,
were different, since no boycott was
involved Yet the circuit court of ap-
peals unanimously held that there had
been interference with interstate com
merce"
1t is this interference which is en-
phasized by the court 1t is not the
strike itself, but the strike as a means
for carrying out n conspiracy to re-
strict interstate commerce in coal that
comes under the ban Here the court
follows the supreme courts decision ia
the hatterS case. which, contrary to
general belief, does not rest upon the
fact that Loewes hats were boyeotted.
There too. the grievance was the in
reference with interstate commerce.
The boycott was only one of the sew
eral means employed to carry out the
conspiracy.
"The present case writes Mr.. Witte,
is one which merits the closest atten-
tion of all those who arc interested IN
the labor movement. The question
whether organized labor has been ex
empted from antitrust laws does not
arise, since the occurrences upon which
this suit was promised antedate by
several months the final adoption of
the Clayton act But the case does
emphasize the vital need for such ex-
emption. Whether this has been Sc
cured by the Clayton act IS still an
open question This act declares that
the labor of a human being is not
commodity or article of commerce.
But neither the Danbury hatters case
nor this proceeds upon the theory that
the labor of human being is com
modify. The bills allege restraint. not
of the market for hatters and coal
miners, but of the market for hats and
coal"