The Birmingham age-herald., 1921-01-04
LABOR UNIONS ARE
 ANSWERAbLE UNDER ANTITRUST LAWS
Cannot Depart From Normal Objects and Engage In Com bination In Restraint
 of Trade
Fly Assccintnd Presa

Washington, January 3. Labor unions or their members are aceounta- ble 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 today in an opinion on which it divided six to three.
 The court reversed lower court de- crees aismissiHS the application Of the Duplex Printing Press company of Battle Creek. Mich, for an injunction restraining Emil J. Deering and Will liam Bramely business agents of the International Association of Ma chinists, from continuing q so-called secondary boycott. This was described by the court as "combinatIon not mere ly to refrain from dealing with com plainant or devise or by peaceful means to persuade complainants GUS toners to refrain (primary boycott), but to exercise coerceive pressure upon such customers, actual and prospec- tive in order to cause them to with hold or withdraw patronage from complainant through fear of loss or damage to themselves should they deal with it."
 Labor leaders of prominence declined to comment on the decision of the
 
 what President Gompers of the Amer ican Federation of Labor has described IS 'labor's bill of rights" At the head quarters of the International Associa- tion of Machinsts it was said that all the officers were out of town
 Immunity from prosecution xas claimed for the agents of the union under Section 6 of the Clayton act which sets forth that the Tabor of a human being ssnot an article of com modity of commerce." It also was con- tended during the course of the litiga- ton that, under Section 20 of the same statute, the courts were specifically restrained from granting injunctious such as that for which application was made.
 COURTS OPINION
 Justice Pitney. who read the opinion of the court, said,
 AS to Section 6. it seems to us it's principal importance in this discussion IS Tor what 1t does not authorize, and for the limit t sets to the immunftv conferred. The section assumes tha normal objects of a labor organization to be legitimate, and declares that nothing in the antitrust laws shall De construed to forbid the existence and operation of such organizations or to forbid their members from law ~ ly carrying ont 4N8ff legttimgt oas lfS'lyi tEN mere is nothlng q ihe ee-
 rss4F nF SS nfSfsNtFs From aF4sE6 ns're ads or they lepl \ fratn sS sAsis. MatR alsets and NeaNe s Aa sst4fs Soi'isindtion or eotispir&ey sA ressra.fsf or trade And by no fair or permissible construction can it be taken as au. thorizlng any activity otherwise un. lawful"
 lIr rt@t"
 With respect to Section 20, the courts opinion was euqalIy explicit.
 All of its provisions are subject "a a general qualification respecting the na- ture of the controversy and the parties aIrected, tho court said. Tt is to j. a case between an employer and employees or between Snployes, involving or grow ing out or dispute concerning term, or conditions of empioyment.
 There Is nothing here to justify .ie Iendants or the organizations they rep. resent in using eitfier hreats or per suason of the complainants' customers or prospective customers and of therehy constraining complainant to yield ths matter in dispute.v
 After setting forth in great detail ths scope of the injunction, which the court he.d should issue, the opinion awarded Inc complainant reimbursement for Ill costs in the supreme court and in the two lower courts
 Special facts in the case should have been considered by the court the dis enting opinion. signed by Justices Bfnn- deis, 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 Du- Hex company.
 The defendants. the dissenting justices said, were obviously pursuing course which would injure the complainant hut they "were not doing 1t maliciously and the unions did not induce any empoye to break his contract or engage in vlo- lence"
 Rccounting1the history of the case. the minority justices said there were at tha time only foEr plants making large printing presses, and between 1909 and 1913 the union succeeded in establishing their denlands as to labor conditions in three of these, only the Duplex company folding out. strike was called in that plant, the manufacturers having served notice that .hey could not be held yo their agreement so long as an important competitor stayed out This strike was supplemented" by the activities of the unions in other places, the minority con tended. and did not constitute "a secon- dary boycott"