Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/219

 196

-

THE GREEN BAG

ment because of such membership. In 1898, Con enter into the contract of employment. State v. gress passed an act by which it was made a Julow, 31 S. W. 781; State v. Krutzberg, 90 N. W. criminal offense for common carriers engaged in 1098; Mathews v. People, 202 Ill. 389. interstate commerce to require any employee to Andrew A. Bruce. agree as a condition of his employment not to CONTRACTS. (Illegality — Monopoly.) U. S. become or remain a member of any labor organ C. C. A. 7th Cir. — The effect of an illegal com ization or to threaten his removal or otherwise bination in restraint of trade on a contract for the discriminate against him because of such member sale of merchandise by the combination comes ship or to attempt or conspire to prevent any up for decision in the case of the Chicago Wall employee who has been discharged or has quit Paper Mills v. General Paper Company, 147 Fed. from obtaining employment. The validity of this Rep. 491. In this case it appears that a corpora provision was questioned in the case of United tion was organized in Wisconsin for the purpose States v. Scott, 148 Fed. Rep. 431. This pro of acting as the exclusive sales agent of the paper vision the court says relates not to the safety of and paper products of certain manufacturing the employees while actually discharging duties corporations located in Wisconsin and Michigan pertaining to interstate commerce, but to their and engaged in the paper industry. The board being members of labor unions, and in the matter of directors of this corporation consisted of of making and enforcing contracts for hiring representatives of the various paper mills, so that them, forbids discrimination against them on that for trade purposes there was a practical amalga ground. The essential purpose of the enactment mation of the producing companies. By this was not to " regulate commercial intercourse arrangement the sales corporation was put in among the states " but was to prevent generall» control of 90 per cent of the paper and paper discrimination against what is called union labor products manufactured west of the Alleghany in one state alone, as well as in more than one Mountains. The validity of the contract made state. This being true, the court holds that the by this sales corporation was attacked in the case unconstitutionality of the enactment is settled. at bar, but as the paper was purchased in the Whatever the states might do in such matters ordinary course of business, the court held that there through their own legislatures, the constitu the purchaser was a stranger to the alleged unlaw tion of the United States does not confer upon ful combination, and that therefore the contract Congress by any express language, nor by any fair of sale was not rendered illegal by the fact that the implication from any language used, the power selling corporation was a trust or monopoly organized in violation of law, either federal or when servants are emploved to prevent discrimi nation against union labor, either in one state state. In support of this position is cited, Hop alone, or in several states, even if the hirer at the kins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 19 Sup. Ct. time does happen to be engaged in interstate 40; Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 19 traffic. Viewed from a narrowed standpoint, the Sup. Ct. 40; Dehnehy v. McNulta, 86 Fed. 825; court holds the enactment unconstitutional on Star Brewery Co. v. United Breweries, 121 Fed. authority of Trade Mark Cases, 100 United States 713; Harrison v. Glucose Co., 116 Fed. 304. 82. The enactment in question includes not only CONTRACTS. (Marriage — Ill-health as De those who work upon interstate commerce but fense.) Wash.— Whether or not a man is justified those who work upon local and state traffic. This in breaking a promise of marriage by the fact that the court holds to be sufficient to bring the law the woman is suffering with pulmonary tubercu within the rule laid down in the Trade Mark losis is exhaustively discussed in Grover v. Zook, 87 Pac. Rep. 638, and the court comes to the con Cases, supra. Even if the act were within the delegated domain clusion that in view of laws enacted for the pur of Congress it would hardly be sustained. Similar pose of preventing the spread of pulmonary acts certainly have been uniformly refused the tuberculosis and on grounds of public policy a sanction of the state courts when passed by the man is justified in breaking a promise of marriage state legislatures. Although the labor union is no under such conditions, even though he knew that longer under the ban of the law, and its trade the woman had the disease at the time of the marks and trade-labels are recognized, the courts, engagement. A large number of authorities are nevertheless, refuse to concede the right to the cited by the court in support of its position. Legislatures to enter into industrial conflict and to CORPORATIONS. (Minority Stockholders — directly aid organized labor in its conflict with Monopolies.) Ill. — The right of a corporation capital. Nor do they believe that " the liberty " either directly or indirectly to obtain control of a guaranteed by the constitution is accorded by a competing corporation by a purchase of the statute which seeks to punish the motive which majority stock in the latter corporation and thus induces either party to terminate or to refuse to to prevent competition, is denied in the recent