Newark leader. ([Newark, Ohio]) 1917-1946, 1922-06-16
UNIONS LIABLE
FOR DAMAGES

The Supreme Court of the United
States has ruled that unincorporated
trade unions can be sued
The decision means that big busi-
ness has won it's objective in it's long
campaign for trade union incorpora-
ton.
The court made this decision in the
case of Coronado coal company versus
the United Mine Workers.
In 1914 the company, and others,
began operation under anti-union con-
ditions. Disorder and bitterness were
associated with the strike and the in
ternational union of mine workers
was sued for damages. A verdict of
100000 was rendered in the Arkan-
sas federal court, which was trebled
under the Sherman antitrust law.
This, together with court costs and
attorneys. fees totaled over $1,000,-
900, which the United Mine Workers
guaranteed by liberty bonds deposited
with the court.
In its decision, the court, with eX-
pressions of regret, orders these funds
returned to the United Mine Workers,
and holds that the Arkansas miners,
district No. 2I, must be sued, as
the strike was a local one and the
United Mine Workers, as an interna-
tional union, was not connected with
it. The case is remanded back for
trial under these instructions.
Anti-union coal owners must start
their fight all over again, and if they
win against the Arkansas miners they
will find depleted treasury. Big
business, however, has won tre-
mendous victory and has been repaid
with interest for it's support of the
miners opponents.
Summed up, the court rules that in
this case the international union of
miners cannot be sued or held liable
for the Arkansas strike, which is a
local affair. But the court for the
first time in American history lays
down the broad principle that trade
! union on strike can be sued and its
strike funds seized for damages.
In defending this new position Chief
Justice Taft cites section 7 of the
antitrust act, which declares that the
persons who may be sued Under. the
act include corporations and associ-
ations existing under or authorized
by the law of either the United States,
or the laws of any foreign country"
"The language" said the chief JUS
tice, "is very broad, and the words,
given their natural significance, GER
tainly include labor unions like these"
The chief justice takes this posi-
tion regardless ~of the historic fact
that the authors of the antitrust law
never intended to include trade
unions in it's scope and did not deem
it essential to comply with labor's plea
that the act be amended to this effect.
! The court justifes its new posi-
ton because "of the growth and neces-
sites Of these great labor organiza-
| tions," and reads into the antitrust
law a meaning that was never in
| tended by lawmakers, who were striv-
ing to break up combinations of men
who were monopolizing commodities.
The decision means that when a
can be tied up and levied on by dam
| age suits.
1t is almost safe to predict that the
decision marks the end of "can't-
strike" agitation, and that big busi-
ness will no longer finance or even
be interested in surface-thinking
editors, political mountebanks and
economic ghost dancers who. urge
handcuff laws.
These laws are no longer necessary.
The supreme court of the United
States has arranged matters to suit
| the convenience of big business, which
can hereafter turn its strikebreaking
over to the i1GiciarV