New-York tribune., 1921-01-04
six Justices of Supreme
Bench Decide Error Is
Made in Refusing Writ
Asked by Manufacturers
Unions Subject to
Antitrust Measure
Dissenting Opinion Sup
ports Contention Made
by Leaders of Workmen

w WAD11lNN ION, Jan. 3.-LabOr
unions or their members are account
able under the antitrust laws where
they depart from their normal and
legitimate objects and engage in an
actual combination or conspiracy in
restraint of trade, the Supreme Court
held to-day in an opinion, on which
1T divided, six to three.
The court reversed lower court de-
crees dismissing the application of the
duplex Printing Press Company, of
Battle Creek, Mich, for an Injunction
restraining Emil ]. Deering and William
Bramley, as business agents of the
International Association of Machin-
lists, from continuing a so-called sec
ondary boycott.
Ihls was described by the court as
"a combination not merely to refrain
from dealing with complainant or to
advise or by peaceful means to ner-
suade complainant's customers to re-
tram (primary boycottl but to exer-
cIse coercive pressure upon such ems
toners, fctual and prospective, in Or
der to cause them to withhold or with
draw patronage from complainant
through fear of loss or damage to
themselves should they deal with it,
Comment Withheld
Labor leaders declined to comment
on the decision, which is the first to
oe given on what President Gompers
"a 'ne american Federation of Labor
mas described as labors bill of rights.
claimed for agents of the union tun unda, Ia,
Section of the Clayton act, which
sets forth that the labor of a humar
being is not an article or COMMODITY
OF commerce. 1t also was contended
that, under Section 20 of the aame
statute, the courts were specifically re.
strained from granting Injunction
such as that for which application was
made.
Justice Pitney, who read the opinion
OF the court, said:
AS to Section 6, it seems to us its
principal Importance in this discussion
IS tor what it does not authorize ane
TOR the limit it sets to the imri,unit,
conlefred The section assumes the
normal objects of a labor organization
TO be legitimate and declares thai
hothlng IN the antitrust laws shall be
construed to forbid the existence an6
operation of such organizations. or t(
forbid their members from lawful,
carrying out their legitimate objects
but there is nothing in the section te
exempt such an organization or its
members from accountability where It
or they, depart from its legitimate oh.
Jects and engage in an actual com.
Dinatlon or conspiracy in restraint OF
trade. And by no fair or permissible
construction can it be taken as author
lzlng any activity otherwise Unlawful
justification Lacking
With respect to Section 20 the
courts opinion was equally explicit.
"All of its provisions are subject to
a general qualification respecting the
nature of the controversy and the
parties affected" the court said. 1T
Is to be a case between an emplover
and employees, or between EMPLOYERS
and employees, or between employees,
involving or growing out of dispute
concerning terms of conditions of en-
ployment.
There is nothing here to Justify de-
PENDANTS or the organizations they
-Sti SSSht ia uSllIS clLNCT tNF6dCS or
persuasion to bring about strikes or a
cessation of work on the part of en-
pioyees of the complainant's customers
or prospective customers and
thereby constraining complainant to
yield the matter in dispute"
After setting forth the scope of the
injunction which the court held should
issue, the opinion awarded the COM
plainant reimbursement for all costs
in the Supreme Court and in the two
lower courts.
Dissenters' Attitude
Special facts in the case should have
been considered by the court, the dis
senting opinion, signed by Justices
Brandeis, Holmes and Clarke, held,
adding that these would have shown
the acts complained Of to have been in
reality a part Of the strike inaugurated
by the union in the principal plant of
the Duplex company.
The defendants, the dissenting JUS
tices said, were obviously pursuing a