The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1922-06-06
UNIONS CAN Be SUED
FORSTRIKEDAMAGES
ANDBLOCKING TRADE
Supreme Court Holds Labor
Bodies Amenable 10
Sherman Act.
NO DISSENTING VIEW
Coronado Coal Case Decid.
ed, Involving Mine De-
struction I'm 1911.
BIG PENALTIES SET ASIDE
Interstate Commerce Not Re-
strained. Thus Relieving La
Dor Bodies Of Paying.
BIG PENALTIES SET AsIDE

celebrated Coronado coal case the SUI
preme Court to-day held that labor
organizations, although unincorpo-
rated. are amenable 10 the Sherman
antitrust act. and that under II such
organizations may be prosecuted for
restraint of interstate commerce.
The court held also that labor unions
are stable. Chief Justice Taft. in an
nouncing the decision, did not indicate
any dissent.
The case which presented the ques-
tons passed upon by TIE court wax
an appeal by the United Mine Work
ers of America. District No. 81 OF
that organization and its officers.
twenty-seven local unions i'm that dis
trict and their officers and sixty-five
individuals. some of the latter not
members of any union. from a decision
by the United States District Court OF
Arkansas, approved by the Circuit
Court of Appeals. holding them guilty.
of violating the Sherman antitrust
act during coal mine strikes in Arkan-
sas in 1914 and imposing damages oc
5000 900, which were trebled under the
antitrust law.
Eject of Decision.
The effect of the decision to-day will
be to set aside the damages. because OF
the finding that the acts which caused
the destruction Of property were not
melted for the purpose of restraining
interstate commerce.
During the strike iawlessness pre-
vailed and property damage was done to
the Coronado and eight other r;ines
controlled by the Bache-Denman Coat
Company. The United Mine Workers OF
America contested the jurisdiction OF
being an unincorporated association OF
mine workers II was not subject TO
prosecution under the Sherman law.
Five questions were presented by the
controversy Chief Justice Taft said.
First. whether there had been a correct
selection of the parties to be sued sec
ond. whether the parties not being in
corporated were subject to suit third.
whether the United Mine Workers en-
gagged I'm n conspiracy or in the destruc-
ton of property for which that organ
zation ard it's officers could be held
liable; fourth. whether there was evil
dence to show that the conspiracy
alleged did restrain or monopolize inter-
state commerce, and fifth whether the
trial court In charging the Jury had
coerced them into returning the verdict.
There had been no misjoinder OF the
parties under the laws OF Arkansas.
where the case was tried. the Supreme
Court held
In view OF Federal legislation. tbs
court announced that such organiza-
tons are suable in the Federal courts
for thei- acts and that funds accumu-
lated to be expended I'm conducting
strikes are subject TO execution in suits
for torts committed by such unions In
strikes"
international hoard AbsoIvcd.
On the ground that there was nothing
In the evidence TO show that the Inter-
national Union or international board
OF the United Mine Workers had author-
lied the strike or taken any part in
preparation for It or in its maintenance
or had ratified II by paying any OF tho
expenses. the court concluded that tho
iHAtT'ibliVHdt Union anu ltS OfUCeTN
should not have been held by the tr'aI
court as subject TO Joint liability with
the district and local organizations and
officers for participation in the con-
spsracy or for the destruction OF props
erty incident TO the strike.
The authority placed by members or
District No. q In their officers TO order
n strike. II was held. made the district
organization responsible for any unlaw-
ft.f f.44. A.. M
OF the strike and made the fund ac-
cumuiated for strike purposes by the
district subject to the payment Of any
Judgment which Is recovered.
IL was necessary. however. In orde-
TO hold District No. 81 liable in this
case under the antitrust act TO estab-
lsh that the conspiracy 10 attack tho
Bache Denman mines and stop non
union employment there was with intent
to restrain interstate commerce. 10 mo-
nopolize IL. and subject IL to the control
OF the union. Chief Justic TAFT stated.
adding that while coal mining Is not
interstate commerce. and obstruction oc
coal mining is not a direct obstruction
to Interstate commerce I'm coal Congress
has the power TO subject such acts to
national supervision and restraint 10
also has the power. the court held to
punish conspiracies In which such prac-
tces are part OF tne pan 10 hlnder.
restrain or monopollze interstate COM
merce.
Restraint of Trade Not shown.
While unincorporated labor organiza-
lions could be sued under tho Sherman
antitrust law for triple damages for
losses TO property caused by them, there
was nothing In the evidence Of the pres.
ent case. Il was declared. 10 show that
the acts complained OF were aimed by
the labor unions TO. restrain Interstate
trade Questions relating TO the chasgs
20 the jury were dismissed without eN.
animation by the court in view Of the
effects OF its decision holding that re-
straint OF interstate commerce had NOT
been the object OF the strike.
Labor leaders in Washington. includ.