Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1921-01-04
BLOW To ORGANIZED
LABOR IN DECISION
OF SUPREME COURT
Tribunal Divided 10 3 in Hold
ing Unions Liable Under
Antitrust Act.
NO IMMUNITY
UNDER CLAYTON ACT
nv Associated Press tn Every Evening.

OF their members are aerostntabie Wfluff
the antitrust laws where they depart
from their normal and legitimate objects
and engage IN All actual combination or
conspiracy In restraint Of trade, the S'l-
p,rne Court held Yesterday in an opinion
on which /. divided, six IN three
The court reversed lower court deorees
Diminishing the application of the Duplex
Printing Company of Battle Creek, Mich
for an injunction restraining Emil I
! Deering and William Bfsmley m business
agents of the international Association Of
Machinists from continuing so-cailed
/ secondary buycott
This was deacrihed bv the court ~ "a
combination not merely ~ refrain from
| dealing with complainant, or 20 advise or
| hv peaceful means 10 persuade complain
| ant q customers Ia refrain tprimary boy
| cottl. bit to exerciHr cosrcIve pressure
upon such customers, actual and pros
pertive. IN order ~ eauso them ~ with
/ hold or Withdraw patronage from com
| plainant through fear If loss or damage 70
i themselves should they deal with u
Labor leaders declined 70 comment or
/ the decision of the court, which ~ the first
Ia he given m what President Gompers
IT tho American Federation of Labor has
ieacrf,nd aa Labor Bill nf Rights
Immunity from prosecution was claimed
for the agents If the union under section
/ 6 Of the layton act. which sets forth that
the labor of human being ls not an arti-
rin or commodity % commerce. II also
wna conteneed that under Section 70 the
courts were specifically restrained from
granting iupInctione such ns that for which
afplicafinn was made, Justice PItney.
who read the opinion of the court. said
AS ~ section q, Il seerna - us lfF
principal importance IN this discussion y
far what II does not authorize and for the
limit IL seta to tho Immunity conferred
Tho section assumes tho normal objects
nf . lahpr organization 70 be legitimate.
and declares that nothing IN the Anti
Trust Laws shall be construed 10 forbid
tho existence and operation Of such organ
lsnfions or TO forbid their members from
lawfully carrying out their legitimate of-
lrcis
But there - nothing in the section T.
exempt such m organization or its mem
hers from accountability where il, or ths1
depart from rs legitimate objects and en-
/ paps, in an actual combination or con
apiraey IN restraint ~ trade. And by NJ
fair. OF permissible construction can Il b'
taken IA nlithorizing any activity bfher
WISE unlawful
. With respect 10 sertion 20, the cour
#id
All of lts provisions arc subject 20
general quanihcation respecfing the m
turc pi tho runtroversy and the partic
affected Il i - be n care between a
employer and employees II between crn
plovprs aud employees, Or between eIn
F, plovea involving or growing Out oi dis
pute concerning terms of conditions Q
employment.
RI r.. 4.
PENDANTS or the oryan xstIons they repre-
sent IN using either threats or persuasion
to bring about strikes pr n cessation O
: work on the part of employees of the com
plants customers or PROSPECTIVE ciIs
TONERS and OF thereby con
straining complainant 90 weld the matte
. in dispute
After settng forth in great detail tn
SCOPE OF the injunction which the cour
held should issue, the opinion awarded Tn
conplainants reimbursemonts for Rll cost
( IN tho Supreme Court and 10 the two lowe
courts
SpN,ial facts IN the case should hAv
been considered by the court. the dis
senting opinion. signed hy Justice
: Brandeis, Holmes and Clarke held add
ing that these would have shown the act
complained Of 20 have been IN reality
part of the strike inaugurated by IN
unlon in the principal plant OF the Dll
: plex Company.
The defendants, the dissenting justice
said, were obviously pursuing cours
which would injure the complainant bu
i they were not doing itmahciously. an,
u the unions did not Undue any employ
/ to break his contract OF engage In violence
The minority justices said there were a
J the time only four plants making larg
printing presses and between 1909 an
; 1913, the union succeeded in estabhshn
q their demands as 10 labor conditions il
" three Of these, only the Duplex Compan
o holding out A strike was called in tha
plant and other manufacturers havin
a served notice that they could not be he'll
u TO their agreement so long as an impOrtan
competitor STAYED out.
This strike was supplemented bv tn
activities of the unions IN other places. III
minority contended, but these did no
: constitute "a secondary boycott
y y New York. Jan. 4-"This is as i'm
: portant decision as has been handle
:, down BY the United States Suprem
:, Court In many wears. declared Waite
!. Gordon Merritt, attorney for the Duple
9 Printing Press Co MIR. Merritt was ais
firm of hatters who won judgement fc
+ 1882 900 in 1915 in the supreme Cour
against l40 striking workmen, who year
before had tried to boycott the output
/ the firm This was the famous Danbur
h Hatters case.
; After the decision 10 the hat ers ca Sc
d said Mr., Merritt, holding that secondar
d hoycotts such as had been carried on b
q the American Federation of Labor or de
: stroy interstate trade constituted viols
q tion OF the Sherman Antitrust Law
y efforts were made by organized labor TO s.
cure an exemption from the Sherman Ia'
and 10 strip the courts of their own rigf
To issue injunctions in labor cases.
4 AS a result of this agitation certai
labor provisions were embodied in III
CLAYTON act, one of them declaring tbs
labor organizations should not be regarCle
!. as illegal combinations under the Ant
4 Trust Ast and another section forbIddlr
. the issuance Of iniunctions agairst certai
; peaceful activities of labor unions