Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-06-13
LABOR UNION RESPONSE.
BILITY.

/ sion on the responsibility of
labor unions for wrongful acts as
handed down by Chief Justice Taft
was at first hailed as a victory for
organized labor because it held as
a matter of evidence that the al
legged acts of the labor union did
not constitute torts that were pun
ishable by damages, and the strike
funds of the union in the case at
bar which were tied up by attach
ment were released by the supreme
court decision. But a further and
more critical study of the decision
does not please the union leaders
SO we'll. The language used by the
court convinces Samuel Gompers
that the principles they thought had
been secured by the passage of the
Clayton act have been altogether
lost and organized labor must make
another campaign for legislation
that will secure them, or perhaps
get an amendment to the constitu-
s'cn passed.
The. Clayton act vas a direct re-
ait OF the Danbury HatterS' case
which many of u readers will re-
rember 1t arose out of a strike
of employees in a hat factory at
Danbury, Connecticut, in which the
union undertook to boycott the
hats produced by the company by
threatening loss of trade to the re-
tail dealers who handled these hats,
and advertising in labor journals
that union men did not p%atronizk
these hats or buy them. 1t was a
celebrated case fought through the
last court of resort. by the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor. The hat
company asked for three times
their proved damages under a clause
in the antitrust law which pro-
vided this penalty for a conspiracy
in restraint of interstate trade.
The supreme court upheld their
judgment, not only against the Dan
bury union, but against all the in
dividual members of the union,
many of whom owned real estate
which had been attached by the hat
company. These individuals were
made whole later by an interna-
tionaI union assessment, but the
decision of the court was that a
Judgment for tort committed by
their ZION with their aid and con-
sent vas good against them as we'll
as their union.
1t was to cure this state of affairs
that Samuel Gompers, with the aid
of President Wilson, got congress
to pass the Clayton act. which
specifically provided that the pen
atty Of the violation Of the anti
trust act above referred to should
not apply to labor unions. That
settled the antitrust act, but it
now appears that the supreme court
holds that labor unions are respon-
sible for damages for any %tortuous
act under other laws besides the
antitrust act, and even under the
constitution itself. The first indi-
cation of that came in the Duplex
Printing Press company case in
which the supreme court decision
swept away a good part of what
Mr.. Gompers and organized labor
thought they had secured in the
Clayton act. MIR. Gompers is of
the opinion that there is really
nothing left of the advantages he
thought he was securing for organ
lied labor in the Clayton act.
What Mr.. Gompers wants is to
exempt labor unions from suits for
alleged tortuous acts, and as we
read the latest decision of Chief
Justice Taft, exemption from re-
sponsibility for wrongful or tortu-
Gus acts on the part of organized
labor or individuals cannot be
secured by any statute law under
GU. constitution. He says in effect
that in the case under consideration
no tort was committed, but if it
had been, all the property of the
union would be liable for it. The
decision appears to be unanimous.
Judge Brandeis, whose decisions
have generally been favorable to
union labor, and who has been
much praised by union labor, evil
IDENTIFY holds to the doctrine of the
responsibility of labor Unions for
their acts in financial damages,
whether the union is incorporated
or not. AS long as twenty years
ago, before he was appointed to the