The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1921-01-08
INJUNCTION VS..
LABOR UNION
Unitsd States Supreme Court
Decides That Boycott is
UnlawfuI


washington. Jan. 3.----Labor unions
Or their members are accountable un-
; ecr the, antf-trust laws where they
depart from their normal and legiti-
nate objects and engage IN an actual
ocmbinetton or conspiracy i'm re-
s(raint OF trade" the supreme court
held today In an opinion on which 1t
divided 6 to o.
The court reversed lower court
decress dismlSsinE the application or
the Duplex Printing Press company
of Battle Crssk, Mich, for an in
junction restraining Emil j. Deering
and William Bramiey, as business
agents Of the International Associa-
non OF Machinists. from continuing
. so-called secondary boycott. This
vAs dsscrtoed by the court as q COM
bSnation not merely to refrnin from
1palinK with complainant or advise,
"or oy. peaceful means TO persuade.
4ornplA1nant customers to refrain
'(p<3xafy boycott. btu to exercise
oosrcive pressure upon such custom
era Actual ard prospective, In order
- cause them TO withhold or with
GraW patroilage from complainant
throngh fear Of loss OF damage to
0emeelves should they deal with it,"
Labor lsad'srs Of prominence de-
elinsd 80 continent on the decision OF
the couFs. which In the first to be
etven ON what President Gonpers OF
the Arnerican Federation OF Labor
has dtecribet as "labor's bin of
rightA At the headquarters Of the
InteFnstional Association OF Machin-
~ t'waA sAid that oil tho oflacers
we're CUT Of town. n,
Immun1ty from prosecution was
cntmed for the aEents OF the union
nader section OF tho CLAYTON act.
which set forth that the labor of a
eunaaN being u not an article or
commodtty of commerce 1t also was
eontendsd curing the course OF the
utigaticn that, under Section 20 OF
tho pRne statute, the courts were
epectdcally restrained from granting
tn1upcficns such ~ that for which
application waa made.
JuNite Pitpsy, who read the opir.-
ton orths coprt, sAid;
"As 70 Section u aeems to US it's
py:Rcinal imcortsf &C In this Discus
oon ~ Tor FhAt Il does not authorize
ana for the limit u sets to the i'm
munaty conferred. The section as
spmes the. norpnai objects OF q labor
ergani1tion to DO legitimate and de-
ciarse that nothing In the anti trust
laws Qhall bs construed to forbid the
existence and operation OF such or.
yanjnatiop or 10 forbid their mem
bere from lawfully carrying out their
bcgttlmate objects. But there is
nothing IN tbs section to exempt such
an Organazation or its members from
acconntabilfy where u or they de-
part rom Its legitimate objects and
engage In an actual combination or
conspiracy In restraint OF trade. And
oy no fair or permissible construc-
ton can II bo taken an authorizing
any activity Otherwise unlawful"
With respect to Section 20. the
oourt's opinioa was equally explicit.
All of ito provisions are subject
90 a generai qualification respect
Ing the nature OF the controversy and
The parties Affected" the court said.
1t 10 10 be o case between an en-
ployer and employees. or between
employers inyoivins or growing out
o. . otspnte concerning terms or con-
d1hons of employment"
There " nothing here TO Justify
defendants or the orsaniza tions they
represent In using either threats or
pcrypasion to bring about strikes or
ceesstion OF work on the part OF
employees OF tho complainant and
cusfomers or prospective customers
and of thereby conytraining COM
piainant to yield the matter in dis
puts." . a!
After setting forth in great detail
the scop OF the injunction which
the court held should issue. the opin-
Ion awarded the complainant reim-
bprsomcnt for all costs i'm the su-
premc court and IN the two lower
courts.
Special facts In the case should
have been considered By the court
the dissenting opinion signed by Jus
tees Brandies. Holmes and Clarke
held. adding that these would have
shown the acts complained OF TO
have been I'm reality part OF the
strike insugursted by the union In the
prfncipal, plans OF the Duplex COM
pany
The defendants. tho dissenting JUS
rces said. were obviously pursuing
course which would injure the COM
piainant but they "wcre not doing II
maiieiously anl the unions did not
induce any employee To break his
contract or engage in violence"
Rccounting the history OF the case.
the minority justices said there were
at the tisno only four plants making
large printing presses and between
1899 and 1914. the unions succeeded
In establishins their demands as to-
labor conditions In three OF these.
only the Duplex company holding out.
a strike was called I'm that plant.
the other manufacturers having
served notice that they could not be
held to their agreement 20 long as
important competitors stayed out.
This strike as supplemented" by the