The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1927-09-30

stroying and damaging company
property, and that the strikers, by
occupying company houses, were
hindering the corporation from en-.
ploying open shop men because nc
houses were available for them. The
injunction was asked to restrain the
union officials and members from
doing the things complained Of.
Jurisdiction questioned
The union, in it's answer and its
arguments, questioned the jurisdic-
ton of the federal court, contending
that no conspiracy existed to ham.
per interstate commerce, since coal
just being mined, could not be con.
sidcred as in interstate shipment.
"Thc strike was carried out at the
point Of production as an ordinary
strike against producer" declared
Henry Warrum of indianapolis, Ind,
one of union counsel. Interference
with production does not interfere
with commerce. 1t is false claim
that there is a federal case in the
complaint"
w. X. Stanley, Of counsel for the
corporation, countcrcd with United
States circuit court opinion handed
down in the southern West Virginia
RED Jacket" case, which he asserted
was analogous to the situation en-
listing in Pittsburgh. The ''Red
Jacket" opinion held that when the
necessary result of the things done
pursuant to or contemplated by the
conspiracy is to restrain trade be-
tween the states, the intent is pre-
sumed. The defendants must be held
to have intended the necessary and
direct consequences Of their acts and
cannot be heard to say to the con-
trary.
1--WE think, therefore," the opin-
ion continued, there can be no doubt
that the conspiracy established by
the testimony was one in restraint
of internal trade and commerce, in
violation Of the Sherman act"
Warrum, who, incidentally. was
one Of the union counsel in the "Red
Jacket" case, insisted it was ncccs,
sary to show Clearly and distinct.
ly" that the Terminal corporation
case came under some federal law.
ut is necessary for them to show
clearly whereby we have intcrfercd
with shipments or sales, or where
and how we have boycottcd their
COAL" Warrum said. "Acts of vio-
lence in conduct of the strike, even
If proven, would not bring the case
within purvicw Of the federal law"
Replying once more on the "Rcd
Jacket" decision, corporation counsel
quoted "it is clear that no more cf-
fcctivc way Of shutting down the
mines could be devised than to get
the houses of the mine villages in
possession Of persons who refuse to
work in the mines and withhold pos
session Of the houses from the pos
session of persons who are willing
to work."
Charges Denied
Answering the corporate MS
claims for damages, the union de-
ned that its members had abused
non-union men and had damaged
company property. Union counsel
claimed much of the disorder at min
ing villages, and much of the prop
erty damages due to explosions, pis-
toll and rifle fire, was caused by pO-
lice employed by the company. The
police, they claimed, after causing
disorders and damages, sought to
place the blame upon union work
men. They complained that these
police abused union men and mem
bers Of their families.
The Pittsburgh Coal company
first big operation in this field to
declare its mines open shop, was
brought into the case by Mr.. Lewis
In an affidavit. the union chief
claimed that during the Miami wage
conference, Frank f. Taplin, Clevc-
land coal and railroad magnate and
a leading Terminal stakeholder, had
approached him with proposition
for secret agreement with the UNI
ion. He proposed, Lewis said, that
Terminal mines be permitted to OPP
crate with union labor on a 81 Il day
basic wage, and that Terminal would
continue to collect union dues and
assessments from the miners, in or
der TO permit the union to continue
its fight against the Pittsburgh Coal
company. According to Lewis, Tap
lin said he was attempting to get
control Of the Pittsburgh Coal COM
pany stock, and suggested that the
union join him in attaining this end
In answer, the Cleveland coal op=
orator made general denial Of the
charges. He denied he had suggest.
ed a secret agreement with the un.
ion on wages, or that he and his as.
sOciates sought control of the Pitts.
burgh Coal company. The only ref
crence to that company at Miami
he said, was made by Lewis himself
The union chief, he charged, sug-
gested that Taplin acquire control
of the company SO that the union la
Dor policy would be maintained in
western Pennsylvania. The Termin-
al head said he told Lewis the un-
ion had a large amount Of money
which it could use for the purpose
if it so desired.