union.

Danbury Hatters' Case (Loewe v. Lawlor) 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 26 A.L.R. 158, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 831, 54 Fed. 994.

The procedure employed in bringing defendants into court was derived by clear and necessary implication from both the Sherman and Clayton Acts, and is that prescribed by the Arkansas Code.

Dowd v. United Mine Workers, 148 C. C. A. 495, 235 Fed. 6; Ferguson v. Carr, 85 Ark. 252, 107 S. W. 1177; Dunbar v. Bell, 90 Ark. 316, 119 S. W. 670; Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Asso. 98 Fed. 817; Branson v. Industrial Workers, 30 Nev. 270, 95 Pac. 354; Martin, Labor Unions, § 218; St. Germain v. Bakery & C. Workers' International Union, 97 Wash. 282, L.R.A.1917F, 824, 166 Pac. 665; Penny v. Central Coal & Coke Co. 71 C. C. A. 135, 138 Fed. 769; Tinkler v. Powell, 23 Wyo. 352, 151 Pac. 1097; Spaulding v. Evenson, 149 Fed. 913, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 904, 82 C. C. A. 263, 150 Fed. 517; Smith v. Swornstedt, 16 How. 288, 302, 14 L. ed. 942, 948; Jensen v. Cooks' & Waiters' Union, 39 Wash. 531, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 302, 81 Pac. 1069; L. D. Willcutt & Sons Co. v. Driscoll, 200 Mass. 110, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1236, 85 N. E. 897; Reynolds v. Davis, 198 Mass. 294, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 162, 84 N. E. 457; Russell v. Stampers & Gold Leaf Local Union, 57 Misc. 96, 107 N. Y. Supp. 303; Auburn Draying Co. v. Wardell, 227 N. Y. 1, 6 A.L.R. 901, 124 N. E. 97; United States v. Coal Dealers' Asso. 85 Fed. 252; Pearson v. Anderburg, 28 Utah, 495, 80 Pac. 307; Fitzpatrick v. Rutter, 160 Ill. 282, 43 N. E. 392.

The United Mine Workers of America, acting through its national officers and its official journal, as well as

by its duly constituted district and local branch agencies and officers, authorized, caused, participated in, encouraged, ratified, and approved the destruction of the business and property of defendants in error.

Taff Vale R. Co. v. Amalgamated Soc. [1901] A. C. 426, 1 B. R. C. 832, 70 L. J. K. B. N. S. 905, 65 J. P. 596, 50 Week. Rep. 44, 85 L. T. N. S. 147, 17 Times L. R. 698-H. L.; Giblan v. National Amalgamated Laborers'

Union [1903] 2 K. B. 600, 1 B. R. C. 528, 72 L. J. K. B. N. S. 907, 89 L. T. N. S. 386, 19 Times L. R. 708—C. A.; Mackendrick v. National Union of Dock Laborers [1911] S. C. 83, 48 Scot. L. R. 17; Spaulding v. Evenson, 149 Fed. 913, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 904, 82 C. C. A. 263, 150 Fed. 517; United States v. American Column & Lumber Co. 263 Fed. 152; Nederlandsch Amerikaansche Stoomvaart Maatschappij v. Stevedores' & Longshoremen's Benev. Soc. 265 Fed. 397; Salt Lake City v. Hollister, 118 U. S. 256, 260, 30 L. ed. 176, 177, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1055; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Harris, 122 U. S. 597, 30 L. ed. 1146, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1286; Washington Gaslight Co. v. Lansden, 172 U. S. 534, 544, 43 L. ed. 543, 547, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 481, 492, 53 L. ed. 613, 621, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; Joplin Mercantile Co. v. United States, 131 C. C. A. 160, 213 Fed. 926, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 470; Re Grand Union Co. 135 C. C. A. 237, 219 Fed. 363; United States v. Nearing, 252 Fed. 223.

Where union officers and members, over whom the union has disciplinary control, in the course of a strike, do illegal acts in furtherance of the union cause, the fact that the union takes no affirmative and public action disapproving what they have done, and suspending or expelling them from membership, is of itself the strongest kind of evidence that the acts were really authorized or connived at by the union, and that they were done in its behalf and for its benefit.

Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Elliott, 42 C. C. A. 188, 102 Fed. 103; Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co. 205 Fed. 830; Danbury Hatters' Case (Loewe v. Lawlor) 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; Southern R. Co. v. Machinists' Local Union, 111 Fed. 49; Allis-Chalmers Co. v. Reliable Lodge, 111 Fed. 264; Union P. R. Co. v. Ruef, 120 Fed. 102; Allis-Chalmers

Co. V. Iron Molders' Union, 150 Fed. 155; Phillips Sheet & Tin Plate Co. V. Amalgamated Asso. 208 Fed. 335; Alaska S. S. Co. v. International Longshoremen's Asso. 236 Fed. 964; Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Retail Clerks' International Protective Asso. 250 Fed. 896; Franklin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 4 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1001, 110 Am. St. Rep. 248, 77 N. E. 176; Illinois C. R. Co. v. International Asso. 190 Fed. 910; Stephens v. Ohio State Teleph. Co. 240 Fed. 778; Niles-Bement-Pond Co. v. Iron Molders' Union, 246 Fed. 864.

The destruction of the business and property of defendants in error was accomplished in the course of an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate commerce.

United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, 57 L. ed. 333, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 325, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Pennsylvania Sugar Ref. Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 92 C. C. A. 318, 166 Fed. 254; Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. ed. 865, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 572; United States v. Reading Co. 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 243, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 90; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 Ū. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815; Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 57 L. ed. 1232, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275, 282, 23 L. ed. 347, 350; I. M. Darnell & Son Co. v. Memphis, 208 U. S. 113, 52 L. ed. 413, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 600, 39 L. ed. 1092, 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 900.

There was no error in the joinder of parties or causes of action.

Jett v. Theo. Maxfield Co. 80 Ark. 167, 96 S. W. 143; Weigel v. McCloskey, 113 Ark. 1, 166 S. W. 944, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 503; Copper River & N. W. R. Co. v. Heney, 128 C. C. A. 131, 211 Fed. 459; Gaillard v. Cantini, 22 C. C. A. 493, 42 U. S. App. 133, 76 Fed. 702; Balfour Quarry Co. v. West Constr. Co. 151 N. C. 345, 66 S. E. 217; United States v. Hough, 103 U. S. 71, 26 L. ed. 305; Union Ins. Co. v. Smith, 124 U. S. 405, 424, 31 L. ed. 497, 505, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 534; Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S. 17, 26, 37 L. ed. 631, 635, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 738; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Humble, 181 U. S. 57, 45 L. ed. 747, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526; Sweeney v. Erving, 228 U. S. 233, 57 L. ed. 815, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 416, Ann. Cas. 1914D, 905; Turner v. Tapscott, 30 Ark. 312; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 131; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v.

Broomfield, 83 Ark. 288, 104 S. W. 133; Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v. Bowen, 93 Ark. 140, 124 S. W. 1048; Hargis v. Lawrence, 135 Ark. 323, 204 S. W. 755; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Shofner, 87 Ark. 303, 112 S. W. 751; Ashford v. Richardson, 88 Ark. 124, 113 S. W. 808; American Ins. Co. v. Haynie, 91 Ark. 43, 120 S. W. 825; Tillar v. Reynolds, 96 Ark. 358, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1043, 131 S. W. 969; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Mixon-McClintock Co. 107 Ark. 57, 154 S. W. 205, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 1247; Mahoney v. Roberts, 86 Ark. 130, 110 S. W. 225; Midland Valley R. Co. v. Ennis, 109 Ark. 206, 159 S. W. 214; FidelityPhenix F. Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 117 Ark. 71, 174 S. W. 215; Williams v. O'Dwyer & A. Co. 127 Ark. 530, 192 S. W. 899; Woollacott v. Meekin, 151 Cal. 701, 91 Pac. 612: Toomey v. Knobloch, 8 Cal. App. 587, 97 Pac. 529; O'Connell v. Reed, 5 C. C. A. 586, 12 U. S. App. 369, 56 Fed. 535; Sawin v. Kenny, 93 U. S. 289, 23 L. ed. 926; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. McGinnis, 228 U. S. 173, 57 L. ed. 785, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426, 3 N. C. C. A. 806; Central Vermont R. Co. v. White, 238 U. S. 507, 59 L. ed. 1433, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 865, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 252, 9 N. C. C. A. 265; Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Kelly, 241 U. S. 485, 60 L. ed. 1117, L.R.A.1917F, 367, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 630, 13 N. C. C. A. 673; Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Leslie, 238 U. S. 599, 603, 59 L. ed. 1478, 1482, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 844; Rush v. Newman, 7 C. C. A. 136, 12 U. S. App. 635, 58 Fed. 158; Bond v. Dustin, 112 U. S. 604, 28 L. ed. 835, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 296; Glenn v. Sumner, 132 U. S. 152, 156, 33 L. ed. 301, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41.

Messrs. Daniel Davenport, Walter Gordon Merritt, and Thomas Hewes, amici curiæ:

The defendant union, acting in its organized capacity, as an entity, can and has successfully restrained trade, and has deliberately ruined the plaintiff. It has common funds from which damages can be collected. It should be made to pay. It is clearly an entity apart from its members. Common sense declares this, economic facts declare it, the law should declare it.

Pollock, First Book of Jur. 2d ed. pp. 110, 111, 114; Wald's Pollock, Contr. by Williston, 3d ed. p. 124; 15 Harvard L. Rev. p. 311; Holland, Jur. 11th ed. pp. 80, 82, 87, 88, 91, 93, 96, 97, 335, 337; Taff Vale R. Co. v. Amal

gamated Soc. [1901] A. C. 426, 1 B. R. C. 832, 70 L. J. K. B. N. S. 905, 65 J. P. 596, 50 Week. Rep. 44, 85 L. T. N. S. 147, 17 Times L. R. 698-H. L.; Brent v. New Orleans, 41 La. Ann. 1098, 6 So. 793; Wallworth v. Holt, 4 Myl. & C. 619, 41 Eng. Reprint, 238, 4 Jur. 814; 3 Holdsworth, History of Eng. Law, pp. 362, 373; 2 Pollock & M. History of Eng. Law, chap. 2, § 12; Taylor, Science of Jur. p. 580; Markby, Elements of Law, p. 82; Lloyd v. Loaring, 6 Ves. Jr. 773, 31 Eng. Reprint, 1302; Meux v. Maltby, 2 Swanst. 277, 36 Eng. Reprint, 621; Story, Eq. Pl. 8th ed. § 77; 30 Harvard L. Rev. 683, 684; Saunders v. Adams Exp. Co. 71 N. J. L. 270, 57 Atl. 899; Mayhew & I. Lumber Co. v. Valley Wells Truck Growers' Asso. Tex. Civ. App. -, 216 S. W. 225; Huth v. Humboldt Stamm, 61 Conn. 227, 23 Atl. 1084; Barnes v. Chicago Typographical Union, 232 Ill. 402, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1150, 122 Am. St. Rep. 129, 83 N. E. 932; Iron Molders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co. 20 L.R.A. (N.S.) 315, 91 C. C. A. 631, 166 Fed. 45; Eliot v. Freeman, 220 U. S. 178, 55 L. ed. 424, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 360; United States V. Trans-Missouri

Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Asso. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 58 L. ed. 1490, L.R.A.1915A, 788, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 951; W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 307; Hillenbrand v. Building Trades Council, 14 Ohio Dec. 628; United States v. Joint Traffic Asso. 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. ed. 259, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25.

Mr. Chief Justice Taft, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court:

The

There are five principal questions pressed by the plaintiffs in error here, the defendants below. first is that there was a misjoinder of parties plaintiff. The second is The second is that the United Mine Workers of America, District No. 21, United Mine Workers of America, and the local unions made defendants, are unincorporated associations and not subject to suit, and therefore should have been dismissed from the case on motions seasonably made. The third is that there is no evidence to show any agency by the United 27 A.L.R.-49.

Mine Workers of America in the conspiracy charged or in the actual destruction of the property, and no liability therefor. The fourth is that there is no evidence to show that the conspiracy alleged against District No. 21 and the other defendants was a conspiracy to restrain or monopolize interstate commerce. The fifth is that the court erred in a supplemental charge to the jury, which so stated the court's view of the evidence as to amount to a mandatory direction coercing the jury into finding the verdict which was recorded.

First. It does not seem to us that there was a misjoinder of parties under the procedure as authorized in Arkansas. In that state the law provides that when causes of action of a like nature, or relative to the same question, are pending before any of its circuit or chancery courts, the court may make such orders and rules regulating proceedings therein as may be conformable to the usages of courts for avoiding unnecessary costs or delay in the administration of justice, and may consolidate said causes when it appears reasonable to do so. In Southern Anthracite Coal Co. v. Bowe, 93 Ark. 140, 124 S. W. 1048, the court consolidated, over objection by defendant, two suits by two workmen who had been injured in the same accident, and the supreme court approved of this action. Fidelity-Phenix F. Ins. Co. v. Friedman, 117 Ark. 71, 174 S. W. 215, it was held that actions by an injured person and by a mortgagee against eight insurance companies on eight different fire insurance policies could be consolidated against the objection by defendants, and they were tried together. Of course, the application of this rule of the Arkansas courts under the Federal Conformity Act will

Federal courts

-consolidation

In

be qualified to pre--practicevent injury to any Conformity Act substantial right of causes of secured by Federal

action.

law in the trial. It is a case for the exercise of reasonable discretion by

Appeal-discre

the trial court. We cannot say that that discretion was abused in this case. -joinder of All the companies parties plaintiff. for which the plain

tionary matters

tiff herein is receiver were united together in interest and were largely under the control of one of them. The active manager of all of them for years was Franklin Bache. He is now the receiver, and, as such, the plaintiff. There was no need for a division in the verdict of damages found, because the union of interest between the defendants involved no difficulty in the distribution among them of the amount found. The judgment is res judicata as to all the plaintiffs, and we can find no substantial reason for disturbing it on this ground. No difficulty presented itself with respect to the challenge of jurors by either side, and, so far as appears, there was no embarrassment to the defendants growing out of the union of the plaintiffs. On the contrary, an examination of the evidence shows that all the witnesses for the defendants treated the plaintiffs as a unit. They were so regarded in business and in the neighborhood where the mines were.

Indeed,

Second. Were the unincorporated associations, the International Union, District No. 21, and the local unions, suable in their names? The United Mine Workers of America is a national organization. Indeed, because it embraces Canada, it is called the International Union. Under its constitution, it is intended to be the union of all workmen employed in and around coal mines, coal washers, and coke ovens on the American continent. Its declared purpose is to increase wages and improve conditions of employment of its members by legislation, conciliation, joint agreements, and strikes. It demands not more than eight hours a day of labor. The union is composed of workmen eligible to membership, and is divided into districts, subdistricts, and local unions. The ultimate authority is a general convention to which delegates selected by the members in their lo

cal organizations are elected. The body governing the union in the interval between conventions is the International Board, consisting of the principal officers, the president, vice president, and secretary-treasurer, together with a member from each district. The president has much power. He can remove or suspend International officers, appoints the national organizers and subordinates, and is to interpret authoritatively the constitution, subject to reversal by the International Board. When the board is not in session, the individual members are to do what he directs them to do. He may dispense with initiation fees for admission of new locals and members. The machinery of the organization is directed largely toward propaganda, conciliation of labor disputes, the making of scale agreements with operators, the discipline of officers, members, districts, and locals, and toward strikes and the maintenance of funds for that purpose. It is admirably framed for unit action under the direction of the national officers. It has a weekly journal, whose editor is appointed by the president, which publishes all official orders and circulars, and all the union news. Each local union is required to be a subscriber, and its official notices are to be brought by the secretary to the attention of the members. The initiation fees and dues collected from each member are divided between the national treasury, the district treasury, and that of the local. Should a local dissolve, the money is to be transmitted to the national treasury.

The rules as to strikes are important here. Section 27 of the constitution is as follows:

"The board shall have power between conventions, by a two-thirds vote, to recommend the calling of a general strike; but under no circumstances shall it call such strike until approved by a referendum vote of the members."

Under article 16, no district is permitted to engage in a strike involving all or a major portion of