The Washington times., 1922-06-07
DECISION.
ON UNIONS
IS FLAY Ed
La Toilette Charges Taft Went
Out Of Way to Offend
laborites.

LdDOFtteS.
Charging the United States Su-
preme Court "went out of its
way to berate the defendants and
TO characterize them as outlaws
and murderers" Senator La Foil
cite (Rep.) of Wisconsin, de-
clared in a statement issued to-
day that its decision Monday in
the Coronado Coal case ''is most
ominous in what it foreshadows
for the future Of union labor in
this country"
The Beginning Of Trouble.
LaFoliette also took a fling at
Chief Justice William Howard Taft
for the manner and nature of the
opinion he handed down in the case
The decision by Chief Justice
Taft Is significant because of what
the court says on questions not in
volved in the case rather than be-
cause of anything that Is actually
decided" LaFollette stated.
The facts are simply that in 1914
an owner Of coal mines in Arkansas
named Bache decided to run his
mines non-union, although in the
midst Of strong union district, and
accordingly he violated his contracts
with his men by hiring non-union
men, discharging union men. and
proceeding to run his mines non.
union. He declared in a letter which
Is contained in the case on appeal,
to do this means a bitter fight. but
In my opinion II can be accomplished
by proper organization
The result of Bache's action was,
OF course, violence and destruction
of property, which he had anticipated
and provoked.
Through a receiver of the mines,
suit was brought against the United
Mine Workers of America, various
locals, and numerous individuals to
recover damages. charged in the
complaint to have resulted from a
conspiracy on the part of the defend
ants to violate the Interstate Com.
merce Act.
"As a result of most unfair
charge of the trial judge to the jury,
q verdict for 5000, 900 was obtained
against the defendants, which was
trebled by the court under the
statute, and with an attorneys fee
Of t25 900, and interest and costs
added the judgment amounted TO
about 100000.
Judgement Entered.
"The judgment was entered In the
trial court in 1917. The defendants
at once appealed to the United States
Supreme Court. where the appeal
was promptly argued and submitted,
but the case slumbered in the bosom
Of the court until II was brought out
and decided yesterday. In the mean
time, of course, the defendants had
been greatly embarrassed by the
continuance against them OF the
judgment in amount sufficient to
wipe them out financially, and based
upon the erroneous decisions of the
lower courts, which until reversed,
remained the law, and greatly
hampered their operations.
There is not, and never was. any
evidence TO show that the defendants
conspired to restrain or monopolize
interstate commerce. That being
true, OF course there is not, and
never was any case against the de-
PENDANTS in the Federal court. AS
n six.line decision was all that was
required to dispose of the case on its
merits, for the supreme court WAS
reluctantly obliged to admit the
fact as / have stated. The court,
however, went out Of It's way
through twenty-nine pages to berate
the defendants and to characterize
them as outlaws and murdcrers,
and the chief justice wound up his
opinion by sayings The circum-
stances are such as to awaken re-
gret that in our view Of the Federal
Jurisdiction, we cannot affirm the
Judgment
More than this, the court also
went out of it's way to change the
law as II has existed in this country
since the beginning of the Govern
nent, that unincorporated associa-
tions. such as are involved here,
could not be used as an entity. The
authority replied upon for the
proposition advanced by the court
vas the infamous Taft Vale Rail
way case decided in England in 1901.
What was Neglected.
"Chief Justice Taft neglected 10
state that as a result Of the Taft
VaIe case the British parliament
nassed a statute, which cut out that
decision, root and branch and made
N impossible for an English court
syer TO render a similar decision.
, "No doubt our Supreme Court
S.els secure behind the bulwark Of
a written institution. the meaning
of which that court has arrogated
10 itself the function Of finally de-
termining.
oany decision therefore sets asice
the money judgment rendered
sSainst the defendants, 4 Is the most
amin Gus in what II foreshadows for
country"