The New York herald., 1922-09-06
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6. 1922.
The Bearing of the Clayton Act.

The Bearing OF the Clayton Act.
1t is apparent that such resistance
on legal grounds as the strike leaders
and sympathizers can offer to the
Daugherty injunction is to center
upon Section 20 of the Clayton act.
The merits or demerits Of that con-
spicuous example of class legislation
are not now in question. Congress
passed the bill containing the ex-
emption section; it was approved by
President WILSON and it became law.
1t remains for the Supreme Court to
interpret it's provisions again, as al
ready once before in the Duplex
Printing Press Company case, de-
cided in January Of last year.
Section 20 of the Federal antitrust
law. known as the Clayton act, was
read by Mr.. GoMPERs on Monday to
his audience in Philadelphia and by
him exhibited to them as bar to
sinjunctions in such case as this.
The act provides that no court or
the United States and no judge or
Judges thereof shall grant any re
straining order or injunction in any
case between an employer and em-
ployees, or between employers and
employees, or between employees, or
between persons employed and per-
sons seeking employment, involving
- "a a
ing terms or conditions of employ
ment," except under certain circum-
stances. The exceptions are when
such Injunction or restraining order
is necessary to prevent irreparable
damage to property, or to property
right, of the person making the ap-
plication, for which injury there is
no adequate remedy at law"
1t is important to observe the ex-
act language of the statute which
Mr.. GoMPERs and the Federation law
yers hold to be prohibitory of. such
injunctions, for the exact language is
vital in the present case.
Section 90 then goes on to recite
certain acts which cannot be pro-
hibited or restrained by judicial or
der and provides that none Of these
specified acts shall be considered or
held to be violations OF any law OF
the United States" The specified
acts thus said to be legalized and re-
moved from the reach of any other
law of the United States are: The
quitting of employment; the ceasing
to perform any work or labor; the
recommending, advising or persuad-
ing others by peaceful means to
quit work; the e,presence of dissuaders
at any place where the persons to
be dissuaded may lawfully be for
the purpose OF peacefully obtaining
or communicating information; the
peaceful persuading Of any person to
work or abstain from working or
from ceasing to patronize or employ
any party to such dispute; the pay
ement OF strike benefits; the peace
able assembling in a lawful manner
end for lawful purposes; and the do
ing of anything which might be done
lawfully in the absence OF such dis
pute by any party thereto.
Here in this mass of verbiage is
the amazing class legislation which
strike and boycott organizers have
depended upon for eight years as
their passport and protection against
the interference OF the courts by in
junction or restraining order. Sec
tion 20 Of the Clayton act Is bound
to be the most prominent feature Of
the arguments of the protestants
against the course adopted by the
Acknowledgement with President HAIR
DrNG's approval.
Now, without undertaking to dis
cuss technically the force of the
statute, there is one thing which any
intelligent layman who reads care
, fully the foregoing provisions is
not likely to overlook. The entire
prohibition of injunctions, like the
whole body or permissive specifica-
tlons consequent thereupon, refers
only to cases between employers and
employees or employees and persons
seeking employment-private parties
on either side. The Government OF
the United States, which has obtained
from Judge WTLKERsoN the tenn
porary injunction and asks the court
to make It permanent, is not an en-
ployer of the striking railroad shop
men. 1t certainly is not an employed
person or in any sense person seek
ing employment.
Docs the Clayton act bear on this
case az all? Is II concerned with the
present application OF the Executive