Evening journal., 1922-06-06
CAN SUE unions
FOR STRIKELOSS

anu tndl unuer IL sucn OrRanlZa-
tions may be prosecuted for re-
straint of interstate commerce.
The court held also that labor
unions are stable. Chief Justice
Taft. in announcing the decision.
did not indicate any dissent.
The case which presented the
questions passed upon by the court
was an appeal by the United Mine
Workers Of America, District No. 21,
Of that organization and its officers,
twenty-seven local unions in that
district and their officers and sixty
five individuals. some OF the latter
not members of any union, from a
decision by the United States Dis
trict Court of Arkansas, approved by
the Circuit Court OF Appeals. holding
them guilty of violating the Sher-
man antitrust act during coal mine
strikes in Arkansas in 1914 and i'm
posing damages OF 100000. which
were trebled under the antitrust
law.
The effect of the decision 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. lawlessness pre-
vailed and property damage was
done to the Coronado and eight |
other mines controlled by the Bache-
Denman Coal Company The United |
Nine Workers of America contested |
the Jurisdiction of the Federal courts |
on the ground that being an unin-
corporated association OF mine
workers, 1t was not subject to prose-
cution 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 20
be sued; second, whether the par
ties not being incorporated were SUB
ject TO suit; third, whether the
United Mine Workers engaged in
conspiracy or in the destruction OF
property for which that organiza-
tion and its officers could be held
liable: fourth, whether there was
evidence to show that the conspiracy
alleged did restrain or monopoIlze
interstate commerce, and nfth'
whether the trial court in charging
the iurv had coerced them into re-
turning the verdict. There had oeen
no misjoindr of the parties under
the laws of Arkansas, where the
case was tried, the Supreme Court
held. ,-,..,., J
I'm view of Federal legislation 6
tho court announced that such or I
are suable in the Federal {
courts for their acts and that funds /
to be expended in con- {
ducting strikes are subject TO eXecu- Z
ton in suits for torts committed DS y
such unions in strikes l
on the ground that there was I
nothing in the evidence TO snow lhe' t
the International Union or interna-
tional board of the United Mine I
Workers had authorized the strike v
or taken any part in preparation 1or
II or in its maintenance or had ratl- s
fed II by paying any of the expenses I
the court concluded that the Inter q
national Union and its officers should d
not have been held by the trial court S
as subject to joint liability with the c
district and local organizations and o
officers for participation in the con- v
spiracy or for the destruction OF r
property incident TO the strike.
The authority placed by members 7
" district No. 81 in their officers 10
,rder a strike, IL was held, made the
district organizatios responsible for
my unlawful injuries inflicted dur
ng the conduct OF the strike and
nade the fund accumulated Tor
trike purposes by the district sub II
ect to the payment Of any judgment t
Which is recovered. n
It was necessary, however, in or ST
Ter to bold District No. 21 liable In N
his case under the antitrust act, to
stablish that the conspiracy to at N
ack the Bache-Denman mines and pI
top pon-unlon employment there In
yas with intent TO restrain interstate a,
ommerce. TO monopolize II, and sub ~
sct Il to the control Of the union, NJ
hief Justice Taft stated. adding that
-hile coal mining is not interstate ~
ommerce, and obstruction Of coal ~,
inning Is not a direct obstruction cI
, Interstate commerce IN coal. Con- -,
ress has the power to subject such II
cts to national supervision and re- -,
.raint. It also has the power, the % ..
ourt held, to punish conspiracies -
/ which such practices are part OF ms .n.
le plan to hinder, restrain or mo-
opolize interstate commerce.
While unincorporated labor organ M NJ
ations could be sued under the pi
herman antitrust law for triple vi
amages for losses to property
,used by them. there was nothing
the evidence Of the present case. &C
was declared, to show that the VIZ
It's complained OF were aimed by
le labor unions TO restrain inter-
ate trade. Questions relating TO
e charge to the jury were dismissed wi
ithout examination by the court, ms
view OF the effects of its decision est
,lding that restraint of interstate Po
,mmerce had not been the object thi
the strike. ct
Labor leaders in Washington in op
lding officers Of the American Fed ere
alton Of Labor, while expressing
tisfaction over the sweeping deci- VA
on. refused to authorize any state
ent in advance OF a careful study
the findings of the court. They
ere particularly interested in that r,c
ction OF the opinion which held Ta
at the treasury of labor organiza- an,
ms could be held liable for dam We
es caused by labor unions. of
the object and demands "a,
the United Mine Workers Of i,e
nerica and the government Of the lie
ganization between conventions oh,
r the purpose of determining fen
iether organized labor. although Fo,
incorporated. may be sued, Chief
stice Taft reviewed in detail its