« 이전계속 »
(259 U, S. 344, 66 L. ed. 975, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.) Mass. 188, 99 N. E. 1051, Ann. Cas. by its duly constituted district and 1913E, 1049; Fleitmann v. Welsbach local branch agencies and officers, auStreet Lighting Co. 240 U. S. 27, 60 L. thorized, caused, participated in, ened. 505, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233; United couraged, ratified, and approved the Copper Securities Co. v. Amalgamated destruction of the business and propCopper Co. 244 U. S. 261, 61 L. ed. erty of defendants in error. 1119, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 509.
Taff Vale R. Co. v. Amalgamated Mr. William A. Glasgow, Jr., also Soc.  A. C. 426, 1 B. R. C. 832, for plaintiffs in error on reargument. 70 L. J. K. B. N. S. 905, 65 J. P. 596,
Messrs. Henry S. Drinker, Jr., 50 Week. Rep. 44, 85 L. T. N. S. 147, James B. McDonough, and Roger B. 17 Times L. R. 698-H. L.; Giblan v. Hull, for defendants in error:
National Amalgamated Laborers' The Sherman Anti-trust Act gives Union  2 K. B. 600, 1 B. R. C. a right of action for its violation 528, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 907, 89 L. T. against an unincorporated labor N. S. 386, 19 Times L. R. 708—C. A.; union.
Mackendrick v. National Union of Danbury Hatters' Case (Loewe v. Dock Laborers  S. C. 83, 48 Lawlor) 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, Scot. L. R. 17; Spaulding v. Evenson, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; 149 Fed. 913, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 904, 82 United States v. Workingmen's Amal- C. C. A. 263, 150 Fed. 517; United gamated Council, 26 A.L.R. 158, 4 In- States v. American Column & Lumber ters. Com. Rep. 831, 54 Fed. 994. Co. 263 Fed. 152; Nederlandsch Amer
The procedure employed in bring- ikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij ing defendants into court was derived Stevedores' Longshoremen's by clear and necessary implication Benev. Soc. 265 Fed. 397; Salt Lake from both the Sherman and Clayton City v. Hollister, 118 U. S. 256, 260, 30 Acts, and is that prescribed by the L. ed. 176, 177, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1055; Arkansas Code.
Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Harris, 122 Dowd v. United Mine Workers, 148 U. S. 597, 30 L. ed. 1146, 7 Sup. Ct. C. C. A. 495, 235 Fed. 6; Ferguson v. Rep. 1286; Washington Gaslight Co. v. Carr, 85 Ark. 252, 107 S. W. 1177; Lansden, 172 U. S. 534, 544, 43 L. ed. Dunbar v. Bell, 90 Ark. 316, 119 S. W. 543, 547, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; New 670; Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United Asso. 98 Fed. 817; Branson v. Indus- States, 212 U. S. 481, 492, 53 L. ed. trial Workers, 30 Nev. 270, 95 Pac. 613, 621, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Joplin 354; Martin, Labor Unions, g 218; St. Mercantile Co. v. United States, 131 Germain v. Bakery & C. Workers' In- C. C. A. 160, 213 Fed. 926, Ann. Cas. ternational Union, 97 Wash. 282, 1916C, 470; Re Grand Union Co. 135 L.R.A.1917F, 824, 166 Pac. 665; Penny C. C. A. 237, 219 Fed. 363; United v. Central Coal & Coke Co. 71 C. C. A. States v. Nearing, 252 Fed. 223. 135, 138 Fed. 769; Tinkler v. Powell, 23 Where union officers and members, Wyo. 352, 151 Pac. 1097; Spaulding v. over whom the union has disciplinary Evenson, 149 Fed. 913, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) control, in the course of a strike, do 904, 82 C. C. A. 263, 150 Fed. 517; illegal acts in furtherance of the Smith v. Swornstedt, 16 How. 288, union cause, the fact that the union 302, 14 L. ed. 942, 948; Jensen v. takes no affirmative and public action Cooks' & Waiters' Union, 39 Wash. disapproving what they have done, and 531, 4 L.R.A.(N.S.) 302, 81 Pac, 1069; suspending or expelling them from L. D. Willcutt & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, membership, is of itself the strongest 200 Mass. 110, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1236,
kind of evidence that the acts were 85 N. E. 897; Reynolds v. Davis, 198 really authorized or connived at by Mass. 294, 17 L.R.A.(N.S.) 162, 84 N. the union, and that they were done in E. 457; Russell v. Stampers & Gold its behalf and for its benefit. Leaf Local Union, 57 Misc. 96, 107 N. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Elliott, Y. Supp. 303; Auburn Draying Co. v. 42 C. C. A. 188, 102 Fed. 103; Buckeye Wardell, 227 N. Y. 1, 6 A.L.R. 901, 124 Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co. 205 N. E. 97; United States v. Coal Deal- Fed. 830; Danbury Hatters' Case ers' Asso. 85 Fed. 252; Pearson V. (Loewe v. Lawlor) 208 U. S. 274, 52 Anderburg, 28 Utah, 495, 80 Pac. 307; L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Fitzpatrick v. Rutter, 160 Ill. 282, 43 Ann. Cas. 815; Southern R. Co. v. N. E. 392.
Machinists' Local Union, 111 Fed. 49; The United Mine Workers of Amer- Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Reliable Lodge, ica, acting through its national offi- 111 Fed. 264; Union P. R. Co. v. cers and its official journal, as well as Ruef, 120 Fed. 102; Allis-Chalmers
Co. Iron Molders' Union, 150 Broomfield, 83 Ark. 288, 104 S. W. 133; Fed. 155; Phillips Sheet & Tin Plate Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v. BowCo.
Amalgamated Asso. 208 en, 93 Ark. 140, 124 S. W. 1048; HarFed. 335; Alaska S. S. Co. v. In- gis v. Lawrence, 135 Ark. 323, 204 S. ternational Longshoremen's Asso. 236 W. 755; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. ShofFed. 964; Kroger Grocery & Bak- ner, 87 Ark. 303, 112 S. W. 751; Ashing Co. v. Retail Clerks' International ford v. Richardson, 88 Ark. 124, 113 Protective Asso. 250 Fed. 896; Frank- S. W. 808; American Ins. Co. v. Haylin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 4 nie, 91 Ark. 43, 120 S. W. 825; Tillar L.R.A.(N.S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. v. Reynolds, 96 Ark. 358, 30 L.R.A. 248, 77 N. E. 176; Illinois C. R. Co. v. (N.S.) 1043, 131 S. W. 969; Kansas International Asso. 190 Fed. 910; City Southern R. Co. v. Mixon-McStephens v. Ohio State Teleph. Co. 240 Clintock Co. 107 Ark. 57, 154 S. W. Fed. 778; Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. 205, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1247; Mahoney Iron Molders' Union, 246 Fed. 864. v. Roberts, 86 Ark. 130, 110 S. W. 225;
The destruction of the business and Midland Valley R. Co. v. Ennis, 109 property of defendants in error was Ark. 206, 159 S. W. 214; Fidelityaccomplished in the course of an un- Phenix F. Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 117 lawful combination and conspiracy in Ark. 71, 174 S. W. 215; Williams v. restraint of interstate commerce. O'Dwyer & A. Co. 127 Ark. 530, 192
United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. S. W. 899; Woollacott v. Meekin, 151 525, 57 L. ed. 333, 44 L.R.A.(N.S.) 325, Cal. 701, 91 Pac. 612: Toomey v. Knob33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Pennsylvania loch, 8 Cal. App. 587, 97 Pac. 529; Sugar Ref. Co. v. American Sugar Ref. O'Connell v. Reed, 5 C. C. A. 586, 12 Co. 92 C. C. A. 318, 166 Fed. 254; U. S. App. 369, 56 Fed. 535; Sawin v. Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, Kenny,. 93 U. S. 289, 23 L. ed. 926; 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. ed. 865, 28 Sup. Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. McGinnis, Ct. Rep. 572; United States v. Reading 228 U. S. 173, 57 L. ed. 785, 33 Sup. Co. 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 243, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426, 3 N. C. C. A. 806; Central Ct. Rep. 90; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 Ú. Vermont R. Co. v. White, 233 U. S. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 507, 59 L. ed. 1433, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; Nash v. United 865, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 252, 9 N. C. C. States, 229 U. S. 373, 57 L. ed. 1232, A. 265; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Welton v. Mis- Kelly, 241 U. S. 485, 60 L. ed. 1117, souri, 91 U. S. 275, 282, 23 L. ed. 347, L.R.A.1917F, 367, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 630, 350; I. M. Darnell & Son Co. v. Mem- 13 N. C. C. A. 673; Kansas City Southphis, 208 U. S. 113, 52 L. ed. 413, 28 ern R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U. S. 599, 603, Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 59 L. ed. 1478, 1482, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564, 600, 39 L. ed. 1092, 1108, 15 Sup. 844; Rush v. Newman, 7 C. C. A. 136, Ct. Rep. 900.
12 U. S. App. 635, 58 Fed. 158; Bond There was no error in the joinder v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 28 L. ed. 835, of parties or causes of action.
5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; Glenn v. Sumner, Jett v. Theo. Maxfield Ço. 80 Ark. 132 U. S. 152, 156, 33 L. ed. 301, 10 167, 96 S. W. 143; Weigel v. McClos- Sup. Ct. Rep. 41. key, 113 Ark. 1, 166 S. W. 944, Ann. Messrs. Daniel Davenport, Walter Cas. 1916C, 503; Copper River & N. Gordon Merritt, and Thomas Hewes, W. R. Co. v. Heney, 128 C. C. A. 131, amici curiæ: 211 Fed. 459; Gaillard v. Cantini, 22 The defendant union, acting in its C. C. A. 493, 42 U. S. App. 133, 76 organized capacity, as an entity, can Fed. 702; Balfour Quarry Co. v. West and has successfully restrained trade, Constr. Co. 151 N. C. 345, 66 S. E. 217; and has deliberately ruined the plainUnited States v. Hough, 103 U. S. 71, tiff. It has common funds from which 26 L. ed. 305; Union Ins. Co. v. Smith, damages can be collected. It should 124 U. S. 405, 424, 31 L. ed. 497, 505, be made to pay. It is clearly an en8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 534; Bogk v. Gassert, tity apart from its members. Com149 U. S. 17, 26, 37 L. ed. 631, 635, 13 mon sense declares this, economic Sup. Ct. Rep. 738; Texas & P. R. Co. facts declare it, the law should dev. Humble, 181 U. S. 57, 45 L. ed. 747, clare it. 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Sweeney v. Ery- Pollock, First Book of Jur. 2d ed. ing, 228 U. S. 233, 57 L. ed. 815, 33 pp. 110, 111, 114; Wald's Pollock, Sup. Ct. Rep. 416, Ann. Cas. 1914D, Contr. by Williston, 3d ed. p. 124; 15 905; Turner v. Tapscott, 30 Ark. 312; Harvard L. Rev. p. 311; Holland, Jur. Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 11th ed. pp. 80, 82, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96, 131; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. 97, 335, 337; Taff Vale R. Co. v. Amal
(259 U. 8. 364, 66 L. ed. 975, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.) famated Soc.  A. C. 426, 1 B. R. Mine Workers of America in the C. 832, 70 L. J. K. B. N. S. 905, 65 J. conspiracy charged or in the actual P. 596, 50 Week. Rep. 44, 85 L. T. N. destruction of the property, and no S. 147, 17 Times L. R. 698—H. L.;
liability therefor. The fourth is Brent v. New Orleans, 41 La. Ann. 1098, 6 So. 793; Wallworth v. Holt,
that there is no evidence to show 4 Myl. & C. 619, 41 Eng. Reprint, 238,
that the conspiracy alleged against 4 Jur. 814; 3 Holdsworth, History of
District No. 21 and the other deEng. Law, pp. 362, 373; 2 Pollock & fendants was a conspiracy to reM. History of Eng. Law, chap. 2, 8 strain or monopolize interstate 12; Taylor, Science of Jur. p. 580; commerce. The fifth is that the Markby, Elements of Law, p. 82; court erred in a supplemental Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves. Jr. 773, 31
charge to the jury, which so stated Eng. Reprint, 1302; Meux v. Maltby,
the court's view of the evidence as 2 Swanst. 277, 36 Eng. Reprint, 621; Story, Eq. Pl. 8th ed. $ 77; 30 Harvard
to amount to a mandatory direction L. Rev. 683, 684; Saunders v. Adams
coercing the jury into finding the Exp. Co. 71 N. J. L. 270, 57 Atl. 899;
verdict which was recorded. Mayhew & I. Lumber Co. v. Valley
First. It does not seem to us that Wells Truck Growers' Asso. Тех. there was a misjoinder of parties Civ. App. —, 216 S. W. 225; Huth v. under the procedure as authorized Humboldt Stamm, 61 Conn. 227, 23 in Arkansas. In that state the law Atl. 1084; Barnes v. Chicago Typo
provides that when causes of action graphical' Union, 232 Ill. 402, 14 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1150, 122 Am. St. Rep.
of a like nature, or relative to the 129, 83 N. E. 932; Iron Molders' Un
same question, are pending before ion v. Allis-Chalmers Co. 20 L.R.A.
any of its circuit or chancery courts, (N.S.) 315, 91 C. C. A. 631, 166 Fed. the court may make such orders and 45; Eliot v. Freeman, 220 U. S. 178, rules regulating proceedings there55 L. ed. 424, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 360; in as may be conformable to the United States
usages of courts for avoiding unFreight Asso. 166 U, S. 290, 41 L. ed.
necessary costs or delay in the ad1007, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Eastern
ministration of justice, and may States Retail Lumber Dealers' Asso. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 58 L.
consolidate said causes when it aped. 1490, L.R.A.1915A, 788, 34 Sup. Ct.
pears reasonable to do so. In SouthRep. 951; W. W. Montague & Co. v. ern Anthracite Coal Co. v. Bowe, Lowry, 193U. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608, 24
93 Ark. 140, 124 S. W. 1048, the Sup. Ct. Rep. 307; Hillenbrand v. court consolidated, over objection by Building Trades Council, 14 Ohio Dec. defendant, two suits by two work628; United States v. Joint Traffic
men who had been injured in the Asso. 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. ed. 259, 19
same accident, and the supreme Sup. Ct. Rep. 25.
court approved of this action. In Mr. Chief Justice Taft, after stat- Fidelity-Phenix F. Ins. Co. v. Frieding the case, delivered the opinion of man, 117 Ark. 71, 174 S. W. 215, it the court:
was held that actions by an injured There are five principal questions person and by a mortgagee against pressed by the plaintiffs in error eight insurance companies on eight here, the defendants below. The different fire insurance policies first is that there was a misjoinder could be consolidated against the of parties plaintiff. The second is
objection by defendants, and they that the United Mine Workers of
were tried together. Of course, the America, District No. 21, United
application of this rule of the Mine Workers of America, and the Arkansas courts under the Federal local unions made defendants, are Conformity Act will unincorporated associations and
be qualified to pre- - practicenot subject to suit, and therefore vent injury to any
-consolidation should have been dismissed from the substantial right of causes of case on motions seasonably made. secured by Federal The third is that there is no evidence law in the trial. It is a case for the to show any agency by the United exercise of reasonable discretion by
the trial court. We cannot say that cal organizations are elected. The
that discretion was body governing the union in the inAppeal-discretionary matters
abused in this case. terval between conventions is the Inparties plaintix.
All the companies ternational Board, consisting of the
for which the plain- principal officers, the president, vice tiff herein is receiver were united to president, and secretary-treasurer, gether in interest and were largely together with a member from each under the control of one of them. district. The president has much The active manager of all of them power. He can remove or suspend for years was Franklin Bache. He International officers, appoints the is now the receiver, and, as such, the national organizers and subordinplaintiff. There was no need for a ates, and is to interpret authoritadivision in the verdict of damages tively the constitution, subject to refound, because the union of interest versal by the International Board. between the defendants involved no When the board is not in session, difficulty in the distribution among the individual members are to do them of the amount found. The what he directs them to do. He may judgment is res judicata as to all the dispense with initiation fees for plaintiffs, and we can find no sub- admission of new locals and memstantial reason for disturbing it on bers. The machinery of the organthis ground. No difficulty presented ization is directed largely toward itself with respect to the challenge propaganda, conciliation of labor of jurors by either side, and, so far disputes, the making of scale agreeas appears, there was no embarrass- ments with operators, the discipline ment to the defendants growing out of officers, members, districts, and of the union of the plaintiffs. On locals, and toward strikes and the the contrary, an examination of the maintenance of funds for that purevidence shows that all the witness
It is admirably framed for es for the defendants treated the unit action under the direction of plaintiffs as a unit. They were so the national officers. It has a weekregarded in business and in the ly journal, whose editor is appointed neighborhood where the mines were. by the president, which publishes all
Second. Were the unincorporated official orders and circulars, and all associations, the International
the union news. Each local union is Union, District No. 21, and the local required to be a subscriber, and its unions, suable in their names? The official notices are to be brought by United Mine Workers of America is
the secretary to the attention of the a national organization. Indeed, members. The initiation fees and because it embraces Canada, it is
dues collected from each member called the International Union. Un- are divided between the national der its constitution, it is intended to
treasury, the district treasury, and be the union of all workmen em- that of the local. Should a local disployed in and around coal mines, solve, the money is to be transmitted coal washers, and coke ovens on the to the national treasury. American continent. Its declared The rules as to strikes are impurpose is to increase wages and im- portant here. Section 27 of the conprove conditions of employment of stitution is as follows: its members by legislation, concilia
“The board shall have power betion, joint agreements, and strikes.
tween conventions, by a two-thirds It demands not more than eight vote, to recommend the calling of a hours a day of labor. The union is general strike; but under no circomposed of workmen eligible to
cumstances shall it call such strike membership, and is divided into dis- until approved by a referendum vote tricts, subdistricts, and local unions.
of the members.' The ultimate authority is a general Under article 16, no district is convention to which delegates se permitted to engage in a strike inlected by the members in their lo- volving all or a major portion of
(259 U, S. 344, 66 L. ed. 975, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570.) its members without sanction of the Undoubtedly, at common law, an International Convention or Board. unincorporated association of per
Section 2 of that article provides sons was not recognized as having that districts may order local strikes any other character than a partnerwithin their respective districts on ship in whatever was done, and it their own responsibility; but where could only sue or be sued in the local strikes are to be financed by name of its members, and their liathe International Union, they must bility had to be enforced against be sanctioned by the International each member. Pickett v. Walsh, 192 Board.
Mass. 572, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1067, 116 Section 3 provides that in unor- Am. St. Rep. 272, 78 N. E. 753, 7 ganized fields the convention or
Ann. Cas. 638; Karges Furniture board must sanction strikes, and no
Co. v. Amalgamated Woodworkers financial aid is to be given until aft
Local Union, 165 Ind. 421, 2 L.R.A. er the strike has lasted four weeks, unless otherwise decided by th
(N.S.) 788, 75 N. E. 877, 6 Ann. board.
Cas. 829; Baskins v. United Mine The board is to prescribe Workers, decided Nov. 7, 1921, 150 conditions in which strikes are to be financed by the International Union,
Ark. 398, 234 S. W. 464. But the and the amount of strike relief to be growth and necessities of these furnished the striking members. In great labor organizations have such cases, the president appoints a
brought affirmative legal recognifinancial agent to assume responsi- tion of their existence and usefulbility for money to be expended ness and provisions for their protecfrom the International funds, and tion, which their members have he only can make binding contracts. found necessary.
Their right to There is a uniform system of ac- maintain strikes, when they do not counting as to the disbursements for
violate law or the rights of others, strikes.
has been declared. The embezzleThe membership of the union has
ment of funds by their officers has reached 450,000. The dues received
been especially denounced as a from them for the national and dis
crime. The so-called union label, trict organizations make a very large annual total, and the obliga- dicate the origin of manufactured
which is a quasi trademark to intions assumed in traveling expenses, holding of conventions, and general product in union labor, has been overhead cost, but most of all in protected against pirating and destrikes, are so heavy that an exten- ceptive use by the statutes of most sive financial business is carried on, of the states, and in many states aumoney is borrowed, notes are given thority to sue to enjoin its use has to banks, and in every way the union been conferred on unions. They have acts as a business entity, distinct been given distinct and separate from its members. No organized representation and the right to apcorporation has greater unity of ac- pear to represent union interests in tion, and in none is more power statutory arbitrations, and before centered in the governing executive official labor boards. We insert in bodies.
the margin an extended reference, 11. Legalization of labor unions and nesota.-Chap. 493, approved April 21, labor combinations:
1917. Nevada.-Rev. Laws 1912, § 6801. The Clayton Act.-Approved October New Jersey.-Comp. Stat. 1910, § 128, p. 15, 1914, $ 6, 38 Stat. at L. 730, 731, chap. 3051. New York.-Consol. Laws 1909, 323, Comp. Stat. & 8835f, 9 Fed. Stat. chap. 40, $ 582. North Dakota.-Rev. Anno. 2d ed. p. 737. California.-Penal Code 1905, $ 8770. Oklahoma.—Rev. Laws Code 1906, p. 581. Colorado.- Rev. Stat. 1910, 8 3764. Pennsylvania.-Dig. Stat1908, § 3924. Maryland.--Anno. Code ute Law 1920, § 21,247. Texas.-Rev. Civ. Supp. 1913, art. 27, § 40. Massachusetts. Stat. 1911, arts. 5244-5246. Utah.-Chap. -Chap. 778, approved July 7, 1914. Min- 68, approved March 8, 1917; Laws 1917,