The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1922-09-08
SHERMAN ACT IS
SUFFICIENT BASIS
[. & N. Official Explains
Legal Points in Recent
Injunction

Louisville, September 7.-(speciatl
E. S. Jouett, vice president and gem
eral counsel of the Louisville and
Nashville Railroad company, today
issued statement in explanation OF
the Daugherty injunction issued by
Federal Judge Wilkerson, in which
he lays down the legal proposition
that the Clayton act supersedes the
Sherman act only in cases between
employer and employee and that in
a suit by the government the provis-
ions of the Sherman act still prevail.
Mr.. Jouett's statement discusses
certain novel questions which at this
time are of special interest not only
to the legal profession but to the
general public as well. Among other
things Mr.. Jouett said:
For 100000 railroad employees,
practically all of the shopmens
crafts, to quit work throughout the
whole country simultaneously and by
concerted action and for the pur-
pose. openly avowed. OF tying up
interstate transportation service I'M
til their demands be granted, con-
stitutes conspiracy in restraint OF
interstate mmerce.
by the Sherman act of July 2,
1890, Congress declared to be 'ille-
gal every combination or con-
spiracy in restraint of trade or COM
merce among the several statesJ and
made it the duty of the Attorney
General to institute proceedings In
equity to prevent and restrain such
violations While any man may
lawfully stop working at will, he
may not conspire with others to
do SO If their joint action will inter-
fere with interstate commerce, and
il he does quit, while he cannot be
required to return to work. he can
be prevented from doing anything to
effectrate the conspiracy.
Under the foregoing clearly es-
tablished principles this strike at its
inception could have been enjoined
under the Sherman act, unless this
law has been changed and here is
where the confusion arises.
There has been a loose impress
sion in both lay and professional
minds that later congressional legis-
lation, known as the Clayton act.
forbids injunctions against quitting
work. advising and persuading 9TH
ers to do so, paying strikers bene-
fits. etc. This is true in ordinary
industrial controversies, but section
20 of that act the one thus definite
ly restricting injunctions, Is ex-
pressly confined to suit between an
employer and employees, or between
employees, or between persons en-
rloyed and persons seeking employ
ment,' and even then only in a case
involving or growing out of a dis
rute concerning terms or conditions
OF employment
1T is too plain for argument that
the above provision of the Clayton
act does not apply to or affect an
injunction in a suit by the United
States, because the government is
not included in the class of litigants
which the statute specifically enum-
crates and also because such suit
would not even involve a dispute
since the original dispute between
the carriers and their employees was
settled by the decision of the labor
board.
The provisions then of the sher-
man act, referred to above, remain
in full force, and the courts still
have the power, in case of strike
like this, to enjoin either the mi
tial walkout or any subsequent acts
or words of either officers or mem
bers by which the continuing con-
spiracy is maintained. This in
wolves no interference with the con-
stitutional rights of the individual,
but merely forbids any action in
furtherance of a conspiracy, which
Congress has declared Is Illegal and
should be enjoined.
I'm discussing a similar question
the supreme court of the United
States, in 221 u. S. 1873, said: To
hold that the restraint of trade un-
der the Sherman Antitrust act or
under general principles of law
could be enjoined, but that the
means through which the restraint
was accomplished could not be en-
joined would be to render the law
impotent.
There are other provisions of the
law which authorize this injunction,
but the Sherman act is enough