Great Falls daily tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1895-1921, 1921-01-04
Reverses Lower Court.

Reverses Lower Court.
The court reversed lower court de-
erees in dismissing the application of the
Duplex Printing Press company of
Battle Creek. Mich, for an injunction
restraining Emil J. Deering and William
Bramley, as business agents Of the In
ternational Association of Machinists.
from continuing a so-caled secondary
boycott. This was described by the
court as a combination not merely to
refrain from dealing with complainant,
or to advise or by peaceful means to
persuade complainant's customers to re-
frain (primary boycottl but to exercise
coercive pressure upon such customers,
actual and prospective. in order to cause
them to withhold or withdraw patronage
from complainant through fear of loss
or damage to themselves should they
deal with it,
Comment Withheld.
Labor leaders of prominence declined
to comment on the decision of the court
which is the first to be given on what
President Gompers, Of the American
Federation of Labor, has described as
'labor's bill of rights" At the head
quarters of the international Associa-
ton Of Machinists it was said that all
of the officers were out of town.
Immunity from prosecution was claim
ed for the agents of the union under
section of the Clayton act, which sets
forth that the labor of human being
is not an article or commodity of COM
merce." 1t also was contended during
the course of the litigation that, under
section 90 of the same statute, the courts
were specifically restrained from grant
ing injunctions such as that for which
application was made.
Justice Pitney. who read the opinion
Of the court, said:
'tAs to section 6. it seems to us its
principal Importance in this discussion
is for what it does not authorize, and
for the limit it sets to the immunity
conferred. The section assumes the
normal objects of a labor organization
to be legitimate, and declares that moth
ing in the antitrust laws shall be con-
strued to forbid the existence and opera
ton of such organization or to forbid
their members from lawfully carrying
out their legitimate objects, but there is
nothing in the section to exempt such
an organization or its members from
accountability where it, or they. depart
from its legitimate objects sand engage
in an actual combination or conspiracy
in restraint of trade. And by no fair
or permissible construction can it be
taken as authorizing any activity other
wise unlawful.
With respect to section 20, the court
opinion was equally explicit.
Threats UniustifiabIe.
"There is nothing here TO justify de-
PENDANTS or the organizations they repre-
sent in using either threats or per-
suasion to bring about strikes. or cess
alton of work on the part of employees OF
the complainant's customers or prospect
i've customers and of thereby containing
complainant to yield the matter in dis
pute.
After setting forth in great detail the
scope of the Injunction which the court
held should issue. the opinion awarded
thecomplainant reimbursement for als
costs in the supreme court and IN the
two lower courts.
Special facts in the case should have
been considered by the court. the dissent
ing opinion. signed by Justices Brandeis,
Holmes and Clark. held, adding that
these would have shown the acts COM
planned of to have been in reality part
of the strike inaugurated by the union in
the principal plant Of the Duplex COM
pany.
The defendants. the dissenting justices
said. were obviously pursuing a course
which would injure the complainant. but
they were not doing it maliciously' and
the unions did not induce any employe
10 break his contract or engage LII ylo-
lence.