Prof. John R. Commons.

University of Wisconsin.

I do not see that there is any way of meeting the situation, which is more effective and at the same time more just to all parties than to adopt essentially the terms of the British Trades Disputes act of 1906. It is a most significant fact that this act was drafted by the present lord chancellor of England, corresponding to the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was aided by other leading lawyers, and it can be taken for granted that the act is both just and effective. The substance of the act lies in section four as follows: "Any action against a trade union, whether of workmen or masters, or against any members or officials thereof, on behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade union in respect to any tortious act alleged to have been committed by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be entertained by any court."

It will be seen that this section avoids the charge of class legislation since it applies both to trade unions and employers' associations. On this ground no injunction or other action would lie against employers for maintaining a blacklist, and none could lie against the union for supporting a boycott. It applies also, of course, to strikes and lockouts

E. Lewis Evans.

Sec.-Treas., Tobacco Workers' Union.

The Sherman anti-trust law has been in effect now for quite a number of years. In the early part of its life, it was practically a dead statute, as very few cases of consequence were called for decision under it. Some cases which really ought to have had its penalties applied, at least as we view the question, failed of effect. It has all along been generally supposed and conceded by those in high authority that the law did not apply to trade unions. However, some of the more farseeing members of the trade union movement have always entertained a strong doubt as to what the Supreme Court would do with a case that was to have judgment passed upon it under this act. Some have thought that a similar decision to the Taff-Vale case would result, and so it has come to pass that the very first case in which the interests of a trade union were to be tried under it, means have been found to make it effectively apply to a trade union. We, as trade unionists, are among the staunchest supporters of the laws of our land. The Supreme Court, the highest court of the land, was instituted for the purpose of construing the relations of legislation to the constitution. We feel ourselves bound to submit to the law as construed by men who are appointed to office with a view of their great ability as jurors.

Where is the parallel between this case and that of the hatters? This was a case of not to sell, and the hatters were simply saying to their friends that this man Loewe would not treat his employes in a fair manner.

In the Northern Securities Company vs. U. S., 193 U. S., 197, the evidence disclosed that this was a case of two great trans-continental railways-parallel linesthe Northern Pacific and the Great Northern forming a holding company known as the Northern Securities Company, and by this they secured nine-tenths of the stock of the Northern Pacific and threefourths of the stock of the Great Northern, thus having the controlling interest. They stifled competition, and made shippers pay their (the holding company's) price for the transportation of goods. This was clearly a conspiracy under the Sherman anti-trust act; two public service corporations-quasi public institutions, if if you please-entitled to the right of exercising the right of eminent domain, to take a man's property whether he willed or not, for corporate purposes.

Is there any parallel between this case and the Loewe vs. Hatters' case? I fail to see it.

We might run through the entire list of cases cited by the Supreme Court in substantiation of their decision, and not one would be found that compares with the case decided. The court has a way of arguing by analogy, but it certainly misses the target in this instance.

We have learned that in legal parlance there is "obiter dictum," "persona dictum," and "gratis dictum," and the Supreme Court certainly gives us plenty of each, and more than a full share of personal and gratis dictum in this case.

However, as long as the trade unionists and the people elect as their representatives the vassals, hirelings, and chattels of the millionaires, plutocrats, corporations, and combinations they must expect to play a losing hand, and the sooner we wake up, throw aside the false party pride we may have and elect men to office who believe this is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, just that much sooner will we be able to secure that degree of justice to which we are entitled.

John R. Alpine.

President, United Association Plumbers.

I am prompted to say a few words relative to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Loewe vs. The United Hatters of North America, which decision in effect was that the Sherman anti-trust law applies in the case referred to.

The intricate and, at times to the unin

itiated, almost incomprehensible decisions as to the intent and purpose of various laws makes it extremely difficult to understand the proper or rather improper application of the Sherman law in this case, and, as one citizen trade unionist, permit me to say that I have no desire to delve into the mysterious legal lore which evolves such a mysterious and unreasonable decision, a decision which strikes a blow at our right to dispose of our labor and our patronage as we desire.

This amazing interpretation of a law which was never intended or understood to apply to the affairs of trade unions is not the concern of the United Hatters of North America alone, but is the direct concern of the vast army of wage-earners and of all who like fair play, and on their shoulders now rests the responsibility of direct and effective action which will remedy the evil committed. This is the more necessary as no one knows now whose ox may next be gored.

It is to be earnestly hoped that Congress will grant relief and that this astounding decision will prove to the wage-earner that he has been literally hiding his light under a bushel and has been almost criminally negligent with regard to the proper use of his political power. To deny us as unionists the privilege of exercising our rights. will serve as an incentive to spur us on to greater and more concentrated effort, that will not only entitle us to expect no curtailment of our rights as unionists and citizens, but will enable us to demand more than we have ever had before; nor will this come from the trade unionist only, all fair-minded and impartial citizens will unite in protest against this decision as unjust as it is unwarranted.

The pages of the history of trade unionism are replete with the many deeds of charity and justice that have been

administered to those who were unable to assist themselves, but who found ready champions in the persons of those who espoused labor's cause. Many wrongs have been righted only after the most bitter sacrifices have been endured by the trade unionists, and who shall say that we are not today even better prepared than ever to make further sacrifices, if must needs be, in order that we may continue to prove to the world in the future, as we have in the past, our willingness and ability to protect our rights by all honorable means, as well as to perpetuate the fair and honorable organization of the great American labor movement.

The organized toilers have lessened the drudgery of toil and extracted from life more of the blessings that serve to sweeten existence than could have been accomplished by any other agency. They have made a special care of the women and children of our land; have made better men out of good men, and good men out of indifferent ones; have done more to eliminate the sin of intemperance by example and discipline than can be well estimated; have nurtured and made a realization in fact that "hope springs eternal in the human breast" for better days and better things. Its progress has been upward and onward, with "Excelsior" its motto, despite the many obstacles and interdictory laws placed in its path by enemies-enemies by choice, since we would fain have regarded them in a friendly light.

Time and space prohibit more extended reference to the many deeds of charity, fraternity, and protection to the toiling masses, as well as to the public in general, performed by labor unions, deeds that stand out with cameo-like distinction and redound to the everlasting credit of the great labor movement. Yet that great movement that has so practically demonstrated its power for the general good has, by this most remarkable decision of the United States Supreme Court, been likened unto the trusts.

Since to be a good union man one must of necessity be a good citizen, the unionist, with the love and respect for his country, its laws and order, which is taught him in the elementary stages of his unionism, will abide by the decision rendered. But it must not be expected that it will be accepted with the same meekness and docility gen

erally accredited to the traditional lamb being led to slaughter, but rather will this undreamed-of decision serve to act as a greater stimulus to renewed activity. It will result in a material strengthening of our forces. Let us hope that Congress will remedy the injustice committed and that the wage-earners will promptly apply the political remedy which is constitutionally within their power.

It is indeed an ill wind that blows no good, and this unprecedented application of a law intended for other purposes will serve to more thoroughly awaken the workers to a sense of their own power and responsibility.

John A. Dyche.

Sec. Treas., Int. Ladies' Garment Workers.

So it has been decided by judicial authority that all of us and the millions who have gone before us, and who devoted their lives to the organization of the wage-earners of this country, have not been engaged in the work of raising the standard of life of the American working men and women; of shortening the hours of their daily toil; of creating among them a spirit of manly independence; of educating and teaching them how to counteract the rapacity of the the individual employers and correcting the abuse of industrial government by the force of concerted action. All this is a delusion and a snare according to the Supreme Court. In reality we are merely trying to create labor trusts and monopolies for the purpose of enriching ourselves at the expense of the community. Each time we enter into an agreement with an employer we are actually conspiring to restrict, in that regard, the liberty of the trader to engage in business.

Evidently the work which the Posts and the Parrys have undertaken to "educate" the public as to the nature of the activities of the trade unions of this country has succeeded, at least with the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Van Cleaves may rest on their laurels.

The American workman is, perhaps, the most law-abiding citizen in the world. He has been led to believe that the laws are interpreted and administered to all classes of the community alike. In fact, that they are his protection against the oppression of the rich and the powerful in this country.