The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1922-06-23
Did The Supreme Court Apologize?
When Handling PlutOcracy a
Decision Worth Millions of
DOllars-POwer to Sue
Unions

Did the supreme court of the
United States apologize to plutocracv
when it expressed its regret in set
! ting aside damages and costs amount
! ing to Sl,OUOOOO against the United
Nine Workers in the Coronado case?
Would the court assure big bus
| mess that the judicial war on organ
| lzed labor would continue, even if the
miners did happen to escape in this
instance?
Did the court take this occasion to
! record malict against the miners in
| tematlonal union, though the court
! acknowledged that this organization
| could not be held for damages be-
cause of d local strike?
Despite this acknowledgment the
court makes this astounding state
ment at the close of its decision:
The 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 Work
ers).
This statement is most extraordin-
aly when it is recalled that the court
reasoned extensively that the United
Mine Workers was not liable for
damages.
The motion to direct the jury to
return a verdict for the defendants
lUmted Mine Workers. should have
been granted" said the court. which
then proceeds to ignore this view
point and closes its decision with the
regret that it cannot hold the funds
Of the union.
While the United Mine Workers
saved S1,0G0,000 by the decision the
court handed plutocracy decision
worth millions of dollars-the pow
en- to sue trade unions.
In expressing regret that the Unit
ed 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 statement?
Why does the court say that the
escape Of the United Mine Workers
is Of less Importance than the courts
proper prOcedure2
Who raised the question of 'fun-
damental limitations ?"
The union is free from wrong. The
court says so, but deplores that it
cannot be held and then hints that it
is better to acquit the union than to
violate the courts fundamental limi-
tations.
Did the court wish to convey the
impression chat the only way the
United Mine Workers could be
mulcted was by lynch law methods,
and that this would prove disastrous
to the court and could not be used?
Did this information Just happen to
reach the court. and did the court
hear that some influential citizens
believe 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
VII?
While the courts decision that
trade unions can be sued is remark
able, its injection Of personal preiu-
dices and hates is also remarkable.
1t would seem that this court would
be conscious of a growing resent
ment against its usurpation of legis-
lative functions and its denial Of hu-
man rights But the regret that it
could not convict the United Mine
Workers indicates the cynic indiffer-
ence of an institution that seems to
have become hard boiled to every
thing but property and profits.