The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1922-02-04
State SUPREME c CURT HITS BACK
trail IN IlAPOR TANT LABOR CASE
Continued from page ~

CONTINUED from page ~
He objects to making a police sta
ton out Of the supreme court. He
ing and not as so much iron, coal
or clay. In his dissent he shoots
right off the bat with:
1.-The antitrust luw was not in
tended to apply to labor unions"
Judge Oscar Hallam joined with
Judge Dibell. They reminded their
colleagues that the supreme court
had IN two former cases laid down
the principle that labor union did
not come within the scope Of the
antitrust law. The three who
joined in the majority decision were
Chief Justice Calvin L. Brown, JUS
Holt. Justice Quinn was not pres
ent when the case was argued ac-
cording to the records of the court.
To the Criminal Courts.
Judge Dibell maintained that 1.-The
antitrust law is criminal statute
and is place among the criminal
statutes in the revision of the state
he held "When it was passed there
had long been in force, and is now,
a statute providing that the peace
full assembling and cooperating in
any calling or trade to obtain an
advance in wages or to maintain
rate is not 4 conspiracy within the
statute defining conspiracy"
No reasonable man can doubt the
logic of Judge Dibell's reasoning and
conclusion when he declares: THE
ANTITRUST STATUTE CLOSELY
FOLLOWS IT'S TITLE AND SUG-
GESTs AS ITS OBJECT COMBI-
NATIONS IN RESTRAINT AND
COMMERCE. BY FIXING OR LINZ
TING THE PRODUCTION OR
SALE OF COMMODITIES. MOTH,
ING IS SAID ABOUT LABOR. IF
LABOR COMES WITHIN THE
STATUTE IT IS BECAUSE 1T IS
CONSTRUED - BE A COMMOD-
ITY, OR AN ARTICLE OF UTIL-
ITY, OR OF TRADE OR OF CON-
MERGE. THE STATUTE DOES
NOT SUGGEST THE INCLUSION
OF LABOR. THE OTHER LEG
ISLATION MENTIONED SUG-
GESTS ITS EXCLUSION"
A Timely Re. Under.
Judge Dibell then reminded his
colleagues that it had already stated
In the Duluth Board of Trades case
that: Labor whether physical, in
tellectual, or a com bination of the
two, is not by any fair rule of con-
struction AN article Of trade, manu-
facture Or USE or an article, COM
modify or utility which enters into
the manufacture of any article of
utility" within the meaning of those
words as used in the statute"
He contended that if it was de-
sirable to make the state antitrust
law conform to the federal antitrust
law is was a matter of legislative ac-
ton and not Of judicial concern.
Taking all the legislation together,
the constitution and the plain mean
ing of the words of the antitrust
law, Judge Dibell commended it
should not be held by the courts that
the legislature intended to include
labor union with a trust.
Assuming that the bannering and
plcketing were conducted so that the
injunction was justified on common
law principles, the injunction grant-
ed went too far, Justice Dibell held.
He pointed out that although much
was made in the majority decision of
the fact that Campbell had operated
his machine himself e;also enplov
ed two non-union operators and had
largely ceased personal operation of
the machine after a hearing on a
temporary injunction in June.
Goes Too Far, Says Dibcll,
THE injunction goes too far in re-
strainlng the activities of the defend
ants (the labor men). I am unable
to see justification for restraining
the defendant for getting to the pub
lie in a peaceable way their inter-
probation of their trouble or the
viewpoint of union labor, or for re-
straln1ng the publication in the un-
ion paper of the we do not patronize
list or of advocacy Of the attitude
and right of labor in this controver-
Sy.
Nothing Vicious Published.
There was nothing vicious in
character published. 1t is going
long way for equity to restrain the
peaceful activities of labor, or to
supervise the conduct of a labor pa
per in the midst of a class strug-
gle. If the antitrust law applied
to unions as does the federal act
and federal decisions are adopted
as held in the majority opinion, there
Is authority for the Injunction in