The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1922-02-04

! the FORM IN Wnlcn II was framed; IN
deed, if that view is adopted the
community of interest among la
borers justifying combined attack
or defense by them is restricted and
their rights of free expression and
open advocacy of their views is Ii
mited. 90.
, FOR the reason stated l think that
labor is not commodity or article
Of commerce within the antitrust
statute; that the, statute does not
apply to labor unions and that the
injunction. ..... went too far in res
tricting the activities of the defen-
dants in peacably putting the situa-
ton as they claimed it before the
public, and in their advocacy of their
claims and their vie through their
newspaper organ"
Hdllam Agrees With Dibell.
Justice Hallam in his statement
agreeing with Justice Dibell simply
says: II agree with Justice Dibell
that the Minnesota statute does not
| cover this case. Common-law prin-
| ciples may have justified an injunc-
ton but the majority opinion is not
founded on that theory and I do not
| discuss the question.
The majority opinion is quite leng-
thy, necessarily so to wiggle around
previous decisions from the same
court, particularly in the Duluth
Board of Trade case, when it was
held that labor was not a commo-
dity or article of trade. The three
RI hot
case with the declaration that it was
mot intended as a decision of the
point, or to cover a case like this
one" Judge Dibell was evidently
led to believe that it was so intend
ed.
The decision says:
THAT a person convicted for con-
tempt who fails to comply with the
Judgment imposed therefor may be
coerced to do so by imprisonment
without infringing lie constitutional
provision forbidding Imprisonment
for debt, whether the judgment dir
ects the payment C money or the
doing of some other act, has been
settled too long and too firmly to re-
qulre further discussion or the cita-
ton Of authorities" the supreme
court ruled today.
Fines Are Set Aside.
The decision holds that the s125
fine payable to Campbell might have
been assessed, but that there was no
proof submitted to show the extent
of damages he suffered"
The STATUTE" it says, "merelv
authorizes the court to award to the
plaintiff sum sufficient to indem-
n1fy him for the damages sustained
ana for his costs and expenses, and
II the award be accepted it operates
as bar to an action for such dam
ages. AS there is no proof of the
amount of damages actually sustain
ed by plaintiff, the court erred in
decreeing that the defendants each
pay fine in the sum of s125 for
his benefit. Payment Of 500 was
imposed on defendants as joint Of
tense, and the judgment is valid, in
sonar as it requires the payment of
this fee, and makes provisions for
enforcing the payment thereof"
Inc claim was made that in en-
joining publication of the "unfair"
charge IN the official paper of the
assembly, the court violated the con-
stltutlonal guaranty of free speech,
The court dismisses this by saving
That the right of free speech is alb
used when words become verbal acts
and injure property wrongfully."
Follows Old Case.
This rulin.,, Mr.. Chase attorney Of
the Citizens Alliance declares, fol-
lows that Of the United States ST.
preme court in the case Of Gompers
against the Puch Stove and Range
company, when it held that publica-
ton was part of the conspiracy to
restrain trade, and upheld the in
junction against publication in the
"Federationist."
The principal controversy" the
court holds, "is whether the Minne
sofa statute applies in a case of this
KIND. The question is now, not hav-
ing been directly involved in any pre-
ceding case. We answer it in anv
affirmative.
The antitrust statute of this state
Tor all intents and purposes, is SUBJ
stantlally the same as the She man
act. which the United States supreme
court has construed as applying to
ordinations of employers as we'll
as to combinations Of employees and
to facts like those disclosed in this
case.
I'm recent years controversies re-
gardlng wages( hours Of labor and
working conditions have become so