Evening star., 1921-01-03
LABOR NOT EXEMPT
IN BOYCOTT LAW,
HIGH COURT HOLDS
Supreme Court Sets Aside
DEGREES of Federal Tribu.
nails in Injunction Case.
FINDS NO IMMUNITY FOR
"SECONDARY B0YC0TTS"
Opinion Divided, 6 to 3, Justices
Holmes, Brandeis and Clarke
Dissenting.

Federal court DEGREES holding that
the Clayton act in effect legalized
secondary boycotts" by organized
labor were set aside today by the
United States Supreme Court
The opinion was read by Justice
McReynolds. The court divided to 3.
Justices Holmes, Brandeis and Clarke
dissenting.
The committee report submitted to
Congress on the Clayton act clear
ly and explicitly said, the opinion
stated, that no immunity was ex-
tended for those authorizing or en-
gaging in secondary boycotts.
The court held, in the case of the
duplex Printing Press Company Of
ternational Association of Machinists.
to restrain the latter from boycotting
Its products, that the Immunity
clause" of the Clayton act could not
be stretched to cover illegal" acts of
labor organizations.
Earlier Decisions Reversed.
The DEGREES dismissing efforts of
the company. an open shop concern.
to enjoin its machinists from combin-
ing to destroy the company's business
were reversed.
The proceedings resulted directly
from charges made by he company
that the machinists' union was con-
Quoting boycott against it by in
stituting or threatening to institute
strikes wherever attempts were made
to advertise, haul. unload. assemble
or operate products of the Battle
Creek concern.
The circuit court of appeals unan-
imously held that this case involved a
secondary boycott, identical in prin-
ciple with that in the Danbury hat
ters' case. while two Of the three
judges held that the Clayton act
iegalized secondary boycotts. thus re-
pea1ing the doctrine of the hatters
case.
Special facts in the case should
have been considered. the dissenting
opinion. presented by Justice Brandeis.
held. The defendants. of course. were
pursuing course which would injure
the plaintiff. Justice Brandeis said. but
the union did not, induce any employe
to break his contract or engage In vfo-
lence.
~Nof Seeenasry Bsyestt.-
Recounting the history Of the case.
Justice Brandeis said there were Their
only four plants making large printing
presses. In 1909 unions attempted TO
establish in these factories. the eight
conditions the unions deemed essential.
By 1913 three of these plants had ac-
cepted these conditions, but the Duplex
company refused.
The other plants then served notice
that they would not agree SO long s
the fourth plant stayed out.
A strike was called to force the
Duplex plant to accede. Mr.. Brandeis
which was supplemented"
by the other actions objected to by the
plaintiff.
TT was a strike against product"
Mr.. BrandeiS said, but was not a
sympathetic strike. as 1 understand IT,
nor was it a secondary boycott"
The strikes called in outside plants
were called ito effect those who had
a common interest" in the results
to be obtained, the minority opinion
believed. and was as much a primary
boycott as was the strike called in
the plant of the Duplex Company it
self. since they attempted to prevent
the installation of the presses pro-
duced by the company.
Section 20 of the Clayton act
was intended to transfer from
the courts to Congress determination
of what laboring men might do to
improve their conditions" Mr.
BrandeiS asserted. Before the passase
of the Clayton act. the courts were
called upon to decide whether such
acts might be against the public in
terests, he said, and if Congress in
tended to do anything. it intended to
take determination away from the
court through adoption of the i'm
clause.