The labor world., 1922-06-24

senatorial campaign committee does
not carry with it the endorsement Of
the things for which Col. Brookhart
stands and opposition to the things
to which he is opposed, what does it
mean and why is the Republican SEN
atorial campaign committee support
ing hint
Let us have bill Of particulars.
DID THE COURT APo1oa1zE7
Did the supreme court Of the Unit
ed States apologize to plutocracy when
it expressed it's regret in setting aside
damages and costs amounting to ST.
100000 against the United Mine
Workers in the Coronado case9
Would the court assure big business
that the judicial war on organized Ia
Dor would continue, even if the min
ers did happen to escape in this in
stance7
Did the court take this occasion to
record malice against the miners in
ternational union, though the court
acknowledged that this organization
could not be held for damages because
Of q local strike?
Despite this acknowledgment the
court makes this astounding statement
at the close Of its decision:
FThe circumstances are such as to
awaken regret that in our view Of the
federal jurisdiction we can not affirm
the judgment"> (of the lower court
against the United Mine Workers.
This statement is most extraordin-
ary when it is recalled that the court
reasoned extensively that the United
Mine Workers was not liable for dam
ages.
"The motion to direct the jury to
return a verdict for the defendants
Omitted Mine Workers) should have
been granted,'' said the court, which
then proceeds to ignore this viewpoint
and closes its decision with the regret
that it cannot hold the funds Of the
union.
While the United Mine Workers
saved 100000 by the decision the
court handed plutocracy decision
worth millions Of dollars-the power
to sue trade unions.
In expressing regret that the United
Mine Workers could not be held, even
though there was no evidence against
them, the court also said:
"But it is Of far higher Importance
that we should preserve inviolate the
fundamental limitations in respect to
the federal jurisdiction.
What is meant by this statement7 2
Why does the court say that the es-
cape Of the United Mine Workers is
Of less Importance than the court 3
proper procedure7
Who raised the question Of "fun-
damental limitations?''
The union is free from wrong. The
court says so, but deplores that it can
not be held and then hints that it is
better to acquit the union than to
violate the court g fundamental limi~
tations.
Did the court wish to convey the
impression that the only way the
Uuited Mine Workers could be mulct-
ed was by lynch law methods, and that
this would prove disastrous to the
court and could not be used9
Did this information just happen
to reach the court, and did the court
hear that some influential citizens be-
lieve now is the time to lay the
ground work for the "star chamber''
court Of justice, which reached its
highest infamy in the reign Of Henry
VIII
While the courts decision that trade
unions can be sued is remarkable. its
injection Of personal prejudices and
hates is also remarkable.
It would seem that this court would
be conscious Of a growing resentment
against its usurpation Of legislative
functions and it's denial of human
rights. But the regret that it could
not convict the United Mine Workers
indicates the cynic Indifference of an
institution that seems to have become
hard boiled to everything but proper
ty and profits.
HOW '1NsIDERs' MAKE MONEY
Here is an example of the way the
insiders on Wall Street make money
It was recently announced thai
three Of the so-called Independent
steel companies-the Republic, tn
Midvale, and tho Inland-had agreed
L.