The Washington times., 1921-09-13


gued long ago. II the miners lose
they will be fined $500, 900 in damages
and SIS 900 in costs and attorneys
fees. The prospect OF such a huge
! punishment has already cost them
heavily in membership, many think
It wise to resign while the going was
good.
Prairie Creek and Grogtown. Arkan-
sas. are mining towns. The mines
were run by union labor. with a con-
tract extending TO the end Of July.
year, the manager suddenly shut
down, discharged the men. and ar
ranged to open In a month with non
union men, with less pay and longer
| hours.
Both Sides Armed.
Both sides armed. The company
| employed the usual detectives. The
operation of the mines under the
new non union plan was put into the
| hands. of a West Virginia corpora
ton, partly to beat the contract with
| the unions and partly to avoid the
State courts and get into the Fed
eral courts.
Old stuff, you see: familiar high in
but the case does not turn on vio-
lence. any more than violence Is an
important paCt of the problem in the
recent West Virginia troubles.
The case turns on whether the at
| tempt Of the miners to protect their
standard OF living by trying to in.
terfere with the business Of non.
union mines was q conspiracy in
restraint of trade.
tutored savage, but Il Is a serious
enough technically to the miners. II
their attempt to unionize can be
decorated with such a term as con-
spiracy In restraint Of trade, then a
clause in the Sherman act comes
into play. giving the mine, owners
triple damages for all injuries SUI.
fered.
II one can guess from the Duplex
case, in which a similar controversy
in the printing trade was recently |
decided. the miners haven't the ghost
of a chance. The court refused in
the Duplex case to find that the |
workers had any direct interest in |
non-union standards in other States |
that interfered with the establish. |
ment Of their own higher standards. |
Rely on Technically.
OF course, In the coal case the tech
>nicality relied upon by the attorneys
for the operators Is flagrantly un.
real. To the mind not complicated
by legal convolutions It is clear
enough that the object OF the miners
had essentially nothing to do with
the questions Of competition and
trade. Interference with trade was
a mere result.
The purpose was to protect their
own standards. The law allows them
to unionize in their own region to
protect those standards. The only
question is whether they have a right
to go out into another State and at
tempt to unionize for the same pur-
pose Of protecting their standards. =
In the troubles we have been see
ing In West Virginia, miners from
other States were trying to unionize
mines the competition Of which was
throwing them out OF employment
and beating down their standards of
living. II the Coronado casa goes az
the presidents would indicate, then
IL follows that the attempt Of miners
from outside TO unionize the West
Virginia mines has been technically
wrong.
In the Duplex case Justice
Brandeis. dissenting, said in sub
stance that the difference was not
about the established principles Of
law. II was about what constituted,
under modern conditions. a direct in.
terest in labor group. In other
words. he dissented from some of the
other justices not because he knew
more about the law. but because he
knew more about modern industry.
Errors on Both Sides.
There are errors and faults on both
sides. There Is an infinite number
Of difficulties requiring long and pat |
lent study. But there IL no use |
whatever in expecting a favorable |
Is conceded.
copyright, 1891, Premier Syndicate. Incl |
uuuuwuuuwnumuauuu |