Evening star., 1939-04-05

law against VIZ E8eaa*
lence IN inter- David Lawrence.
state commerce 1
clearly stated. In fact. on June %,
1887, this correspondent presented
extracts from the opinion and then
wrote:
1.-The foregoing not only lays the
basis for the recovery of triple
damages in a civil suit If the en-
ployers wish to pursue the matter
in the Federal courts, but 1t fur
nishes a prima facie case for the
President of the United States and
the Attorney General to institute
prosecutions for violations of the
June, 1884, statute relating to the
use of force to induce an agreement
In any matter affecting interstate
commerce"
The statute in question forbids
the seizure of any property or the
use of violence to force an agree
ment and specifically says that only
lawfully conducted strikes are eX-
empted from the provisions. Since
the Supreme Court of the United
States now has affirmed that the
use of the Shutdown" is not lawful,
the case may be made against indi-
viduals who engage in a sit-down
strike by invoking the interstate
commerce laws plus the 1884 statute,
sometimes referred to as the anti
racketeering" law.
Stands as Final JUDGMENT.
It is significant that the Circuit
Court of Appeals opinion in June,
1887, which, by the way, stands as
a final judgment because it was not
reversed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, used as justifl-
cation the same reasoning which led
the highest court to uphold the
Wagner Labor Relations Act. The
Supreme Court had held that Con-
gress had the right to remove i'm
pediments to interstate commerce
and that If Congress felt that COM
pulsory negotiation-or collective
bargaining-was a means of remov-
> ing such impediments. 1t could pass
a law to that effect. Previously the
Supreme Court, in the so-called Sec
ond Coronado case, had ruled that
interruption Of production by direct
action of a union was a conspiracy
to violate the antitrust laws.
It is interesting now to recall the
opinion of the Circuit Court of APP
peals In June, 1887, because Judge
Davis, speaking for the court, quoted
this significant passage from the
opinion Of Chief Justice Hughes in
which the Wagner Act was held
constitutional just few weeks
before:
when the intent of those un-
lawfully preventing the manufacture
or production is shown to be to re-
strain or control the supply enter
ing and moving in interstate COM
merce their action is direct
violation of the antitrust act. And
the existence of that intent may be
, a necessary inference from proof
of the direct and substantial effect
produced by the employees conduct y
Knew Ultimate objective.
Then Judge Davis continued with
his own opinion:
1T may be that the ultimate in
tent of the conspirators in this case
was to force the plaintiff to sign an
agreement for a closed shop. This
would be perfectly all right If the
defendants had used lawful means
to bring 1t about, but when they
used unlawful means-the commits
sion of crime and the restraint of
interstate commerce-they knew
exactly what they were doing and
must have intended, as rational
beings, to do exactly what they did.
The ultimate object which they
had in view in no way exculpates
them from the violation OF the Sher-
man Act.
THE defendants knew full we'll
that the silk and cotton used in
making hosiery came from outside
Pennsylvania. They also knew that
when they seized and stopped the
operations in that factory and re-
fused to allow 100000 worth of fin
ished hosiery to be sent to pur-
chasers, they were restraining trade
and the free flow of interstate COM
merce. This was a necessary and
direct consequence of their acts and
they must be held to have intended
It,"
Since a jury in Federal Court
now has assessed $771, 900 damages
against the c. I. o. hosiery union
which conducted the sit-down strike,
1t is difficult to understand just what
issues could be raised by the re-
ported appeal to higher court
which have not already been raised
and decided by the higher courts.
It may be that unions are not flnan-
cially able to meet such high
assessment and if this is the case
then it is possible that suits against
individuals may follow. The point
Is that irrespective of the provoca-
ton to violence, the system of Amer
lean law presupposes resort to peace
full means and lawful use of con-
eerted economic power rather than
seizure of property, destruction OF
machines or interference with move
ment of goods from a plant to GUS
toners. It is not really a pro or
anti labor question at all, but a
simple issue Of obedience to law or
gangsterism.
(Copyright 1o30)