Bisbee daily review., 1921-01-04
ANTI TRUST IAN APPLICABLE TO [ABOR UNIONS
 |SDEC|S|ON Court Reverses Low CT Authority In Duplex
 Company s Action. M M U NIFTY IS DENIED Opinion Holds Leaders Liable To Prosecution Whenever
 Trade Is Restrained.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 3.--Labor un, ions or their members are accountable under antitrust laws where they de ,, part from taeir normal and legiti- mate objects and engage in an actual combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade" the supreme court held to- day in an opinion, on which it di- vided. six to three.
 The court reversed lower court de crees dismissing application of the Duplex Printing Press company of Battle Creek. Mich, for an injunction restraining E. J. Deering and William Bramley as business agents of the h. ternational Association of Machinists, from continuing a so-called secondary boycott. This, the court described as "a combination not merely to refrain from dealing with complainant, or to advise or by peaceful means to per suade complainants' customers to re- frain (primary boycott). but to exer- else coersive pressHre upon such GUS toners. actual and prospective, in or der to cause them to withhold or with draw patronage from complainant through fear of loss or damage to damage to themselves should they deal with it.
 Labor Leaders Silent.
 Labor leaders declined to comment on the decision. which is the first to be given on what Samuel Gompe1s has described as "labor's bill of rights
 Immunity from prosecution was claimed for the agents of the union under section six of the Clayton act. which sets forth that the labor of a human being is not an article or com modity of commerce.
 It also was contended during the litigation that, under section 20 of the same statute. the courts were re- strained from granting injunctions such as that for which application was made.
 ion, said:
 As to section six, it seems to us it's 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 nothing in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of such organizations or to forbid their members from lawfully carrying out their legitimate objects. But there is nothing to exempt such an organization or it's members from accountability where it. or they. de- mn rf l.tr afn oh nd engage in an actual combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. And by no fair, or permissible construc- tion can it be taken as authorizing any activity otherwise unlawful
 With respect to section 20, the court said:
 Complainant Awarded Costs.
 All of it's provisions are subject to a general qualification respecting the nature of the controversy and the parties affected. It is to be case between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, involving or grow ing out of dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment.
 There is nothing here to justify de- v represent in using either threats or persuasion to bring about strikes, or a cessation of work by employees or the complainants customers or pros pective customers . and thereby constraining complainant to yield the matter in dispute"
 After setting forth in detail the scope of the injunction which the court held should issue, the opinion awarded the complainant reimburse ments for all costs in the supreme court and in the two lower courts.i
 Cases History Accounted
 The defendants, these justices said were obviously pursuing course which would injure the complainant but they were not doing it mali ciously" and the unions did not induce any employe to break his contract or engage in violence.
 Accounting the history of the case. the minority justices said there were only four plants making large printing presses and between 1909 and 1913 the union established their demands as to labor conditions in three. ont; the Duplex Company holding out, A strike was called there. the other manufacturers having served notice that they could not be held to their agreement so long as su important competitor stayed out. This strike was supplemented" by the activities of the unions in other places, tho m1n- ority contended but these did not constitute secondary boycott"