Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-12-22
TWO IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

Two decisions of considerable importance have
Just been handed down by the. federal supreme
court, an interesting feature of the pair being that
IN the estimation of a good many people the one will
tend to counteract the other, as an evidence Of the
lcanings of the court toward what is often consider
ed a progressive policy or the reverse.
In one of these decisions, the National Associa-
ton of Hardwood. Manufacturers is declared to be
IN violation of the federal antitrust laws in operat-
ing under what isgtermed its open competition plan.
Obviously the court is not opposed to open .coulpeti-
ton. The purport of the decision is rather that the
plan of the association which is described as an open
competition plan is not so in fact, but is intended to
suppress competition and to create a, ,nonopolistic
control of the hardwood market and hardwood pric-
es. The Inference from the summary of the de
clsion is that the association has endeavored to com
ply with the forms of the law. 1t has been denied
that prices were fixed or that there was any inter
ference with competition, but the court decides in
view of the evidence submitted that this appearance
was deceptive and that the supplying Of information
as to stocks and prices and the offering of sugges-
tons as to the trend of the market. together with
the proceedings at meetings of the members of the
association, amounted in fact to the CARRYING out Of
plans for fixing prices, curtailing production. and
otherwise manipulating the market in an arbitrary
and unwarranted manner. For this reason the asso-
citation is held to be operating in unreasonable re-
stra1nt OF trade and is estopped from continuing in
this practice. This decision will be hailed as a thor
oughly progressive one by those who believe that
all decisions against corporations are progressive.
The other decision involves the attitude of the
nation and the states toward labor controversies.
1t is held IN that decision that a court cannot be re-
strained BY state legislature from issuing injunc-
tons against the practice of picketing during labor
controversies. The ground taken in that decision
is that there is an inherent right guaranteed by the
federal constitution with. which state legislatures
may not interfere, and the enjoyment Of legally ac-
CURED property and its use in peace and security.
1t is held competent for a court where such enioy-
1nent Of property is n,enaced to issue an order re-
!stralning the acts by which injury is likely to be in
[flicted. We do not understand from tie decision
that it is aimed at practices which do not really. in
~terfere with the freedom of trade and the ordinary
activities of individuals or their associations. but It
IS maintained that where actual injury is impending
through unwarranted interference with the recog.
nlzed rights of people the. courts may issue orders
restraining such acts, despite any attempted legis-
lation by state assemblies or other bodies. This de-
'cision will be unwelcome to those who believe that
the courts should exist for the purpose. Of tamuer-
ing and embarrassing corporations sand EMPLOYERS
generally and Of permitting the widest latitude to
individuals to interfere with. others provided the
interference is in the interest Of working people who
are seeking to apply pressure to their employers.
While the two decisions are based on entirely
different grounds and involve different principles,
they will undoubtedly be set against each other BY
many citizens and the condemnation which: one will
bring will be Offset by the satisfaction arising from.
the other.
The limitation Of ornaments wilt sc the lesser
triumph of the conference If II succecds1n disar1n-
ING sa,sPicioa ard III wilL---Boston IIsansexiptsa~@s
q SisSs BssrI ruined s Nj ctktnae ssfSf Ean
|byssbad coHpanionshhiip M