New-York tribune., 1922-06-06

rulated NAV not be made TO satisfy
claims for injuries unlawfully caused
y carrying out Of their united pur-
,0se."
Saws law includes Unions
After pointing 10 numerous laws in
phieh the legality Of unions Is rec.
oenised. the Chkf Justice expressed
the oplnion that such organizations
are sucable in the Federal courts FOR
their acts. and that funds accumulated
10 be expended in conducting strikes
ere subject 70 execution In suits for
torts committed by such unions IN
strikes" This conclusion. he said, was
confirmed By the words Of Sections z
and Of the antitrust law, whose
broad language, he said, certainly in
cludes labor unions like these.
Congress was passing drastic legis-
lation 70 remedy a threatening danger
70 the public welfare and did not in
tend that any persons or combinations
OF persons should escape It's applica-
tions," the Chief Justice said. Their
thought was especially directed against
business associations and combines
that were unincorporated 20 do the
things forbidden BY the act, but they
used language broad enough 20 include
all associations which might violate It's
provisions recognized by the statutes
% the United States or the states or
the territories or foreign countries as
lawfully existing, and this, OF course,
includes labor unions. as the legisla-
tion referred 10 shows"
For these reasons, the Chief Justice
said IN conclusion, the international
union and the subordinate unions were
properly made the defendants in the
suit
Coming 70 the third question, the
Chief Justice said that there was moth
ing 10 show that the strike, which cul-
minated in a battle on July IT, 1914,
did not come exactly within the defini-
tion Of a local strike. Referring 70 the
argument OF counsel for the plaintiffs
that because the national body had au-
thority 20 discipline district organiza-
tions 10 was is duty 20 superlntend
the strike and prevent its becoming
lawless at its peril, the Chief Justice
said:
ave do not conceive that such re-
sponSibility Is imposed upon the na-
tional body. A corporation Is fespon-
siDle for the wrongs committed by its
agents in the course Of It's business
the contention that torts are ultra wires
the corporation, but II must be shown
that u is IN the business Of the corpora
tion. Surely, no stricter rule can be
enforced against an unincorpOrated or
ganizetion like this"
Concerning the fourth question the
Chief Justice faid there we're two
points In dispute. the 6rst being
whether District No. 21 and the in
dividual defendants participated in the
plot unlawfully 70 deprive the plain
tiffs Of their employees by intimidation
and violence, and second, whether they
did these things in pursuance Of a
conspiracy 20 restrain and monopolize
interstate commerce.
The Chief Justice quoted the consti-
tuition Of District No. 2l as evidence
that the authority is put by all the
members Of the district in their Off
GERS 10 order a strike, "and II in the
conduct Of that strike unlawful in
juries are inflicted, the district or
ganization is responsible and the fund
accumulated for strike purposes may be
subjected 20 the payment of any judg-
mcnt which is recovered" In order 70
make District No. y liable under the
anti-truss act IL was necessary TO show
that the attempt 20 stop the employ
ment Of nOn-uniOn men was with the
intent 10 restrain interstate commerce.
Goal mining is not interstate COM
mcrcc and the power Of Congress does
not extend 20 It's regulation as such, "
faid the Chief Justice. He cited sew
eral decisions and then said "obstruc-
tion 20 coal mining Is not direct OBJ
struction to interstate commerce in
coal, although 1t, Of course, may affect
II by reducing the amount Of coal 20
be carried in that commerce.
Finds No Trade Conspiracy
The Chief Justice seid that in this
case the evidence, instead OF showing
intent 20 injure, Obstuct or restrain
interstate commerce, demonstrated that
the union leaders were seeking 10 stim-
ulate the unionization Of non-union
mines, not only as a means OF better
ing the conditions Of wages and Of
workers, but also as means OF lessen
ing interstate competition for union
operators which, in turn. would lessen
the pressure Of those operators for re-
ductiOn OF the union scale or their re-
sistancc 10 an increase.
"ln the case az bar, there is nothing
IN the circumstances or the declara-
tions OF the parties 10 indicate that
Stewart, the president Of District No.
2l. or Hull, its secretary-treasurer, or
any Of their accOmpliccs had in mind
interference with interstate commerce
OF competition when they entered upon
their unlawful combination to break
up BacnoS plan 10 carry on the mines
with non-union men," said the Chief
Justice. "The result Of our considera.
lN Ir II -
was % evidence submitted to the Jury
upon which they properly could find
that the outrages, felonies and mur.
dcrs Of District 81 and its companions
IN crime were committed by them in q
conspiracy to restrain and monopolize
b interstate commerce
y Answering the fifth question, the
Chief Justice said:
These conclusions make IL unnoces-
sary 20 examine the objection which
the plaintiffs in error make to the sup
Elemental charge Of the court"
The strike Of the coal miners at the
mines Of the Coronado Coal Company
was one Of great bitterness. Men were
killed and mines were flooded, dyna-
mited and otherwise damaged. The
Arkansas state militia was called. out
20 protect life and property. The
lower court held that unions could be
sued in their associate names and that
the action Of the Coronado Coal Com
pany for damages for property in
juries during strike at the COM
pany's coal mines brought the mine
workers union within the provisions of
the Sherman antitrust law and enti-
tied the coal company to recover
treble damages.
Coronado Ruling Called