cated its passage in substantially the form in which it was presented to the Senate; but on the subject of so delimiting its scope as to exempt organized labor from the prohibitive clauses, he declared himself strongly and unalterably opposed. He said: * "I shall be glad, within the constitutional limits, which are narrow but clear, in the regulation of commerce to go as far as Congress has the power to go in breaking up these great monopolies that exist to the detriment and injury of mankind But I can go no further. I do not wish to hold out a false hope to the people of the United States, be they farmers or mere workingmen, as they are sometimes called * **If he [the working man and wage-earner] gets that wage paid to him, the thing that he has done must be worth the money that is paid to him for doing it, or his employer will fail, and then he will have nothing to do and the business will stop. That sort of thing has happened a thousand times and is happening every day* Opposing Argument, Continued.-Throughout the discussion Senator Edmunds views it from the commercial standpoint, and founds his opposition on the supposed inequality that would ensue if capital is hampered while the activities of labor are permitted to continue unrestrained. In the course of the argument, though at an earlier place, he declares: "The fact is that this matter of capital, as it is called, of business, and of labor is an equation, and you cannot disturb one side of the equation without disturbing the other. If we are to have equality, as we ought to have, if the combination on one side is to be prohibited, the combination on the other side must be prohibited or there will be certain destruction in the end." 4. EXCLUSION OF LABOR PROVISION FROM SHERMAN LAW. Argument Prevails; Labor Clause Ignored.-The argument thus set forth and the reasoning therein expounded met with approval; at least, no account is recorded of any effective presenta 1 Bills and Debates on Trusts, page 290; 21 Cong. Record, page 2727; see Thornton, "Sherman Anti-Trust Act," pages 26-7. tion of the matter from the position of the wage earner. The bill, on March 27th, with its proposed amendments was referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which Senator Edmunds was chairman. It was there redrafted by Senator Hoar, a member of the committee, and on April 8th the law was passed by the Senate upon the recommendation of Senator Sherman, its advocate and sponsor, with only one dissenting vote. It received the unanimous vote of the House, and upon approval by President Harrison, July 2, 1890, became of binding force and effect. Argument Advanced not Convincing.-In the light of history and of fuller study of the principles that govern the relations of employer and employee, the reasons advanced when arguing against the exemption of labor organizations from the provisions of the Sherman Act seem rather immature in the light of subsequent developments and experience. The prevailing argument in opposition to that amendment was left without material contradiction, although the answering idea might well have occurred to the Senators engaged in that conference,-so far-reaching in its effects upon the commercial and social life of the nation. 5. ARGUMENT CRITICIZED. Defect in Argument Noted.-The fact is that the “equality" and the "equation" described in the foregoing quotation do not set forth the case with the accuracy and acumen that might be expected in a quarter so distinguished. The speaker and advocate overlooked the obvious-almost self-apparent-factor that every corporation in and of itself is a legally constituted and publicly recognized combination of individuals, supplemented by the crystallized form of prior labor which we call capital. It is therefore, already a "combination"; and only awaits a predatory inclination to become by collective power and weight of numbers, a member of and perhaps an active participant in the class of restraints of trade which the Anti-trust statutes frown upon and illegalize. Labor Should Receive Legislative Encouragement.-The training and effort involved in the creation and management of the modern business corporation is presumably much more extensive and exacting than is called for in conducting the affairs of an association of workers, and the accumulation of capital is so far greater, that Congress is warranted, in the light of experience, in placing restraints about the one that may not be applicable to the other. Legislation for the encouragement of one class may be justified on the principle that self-help which tends to thrift and to higher averages of citizenship is beneficial; whereas the selfish aggrandizement of capital and property in its various forms is a formidable thing of itself, although a means of advancing the nation's wealth. 6. EQUALITY OF CORPORATION AND LABOR UNION NOTED. Organized Labor and Corporation on Equal Footing.-In brief, the combination of labor in the form of a trades unionnot the individual worker as a unit-meets a combination of individuals in the form of an incorporated body on equal terms, and together they constitute the "equation" referred to by Senator Edmunds. The "trust" has re-combined a number of corporations under a single control, and in consequence it is not on equal terms with the trades union, when the latter comprises only a single group of wage earners. It is only where a federation of extensive or world-wide scope occupies a vast territory that the combination of workmen becomes equalized to a trust. 7. LAWFUL organized Labor should be encourAGED. Occasions for Restraint Compared.-The incorporated body, when in the hands of able, aggressive and unscrupulous individuals, has shown itself an organ of oppression, at once elusive and capable of amassing vast wealth while violating the policy of the laws, although scrupulous in matters of mere form; the combination of workmen on the contrary, has shown itself principally concerned with maintaining or enhancing the rate of wages or reducing the hours of labor,-both benefits when conditions warrant, as they tend to increase the efficiency, welfare and happiness of the general populace. Labor organizations have, with few exceptions, displayed a tendency to conform to the requirements of law. It is upon this record that Congress has reversed its attitude and has decreed, "nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the Anti-trust laws" (Clayton Law, Section 6). However, it should be noted that the constitutional right of Congress to make this exception has not been judicially determined. Ia Thus, combinations of workmen for their own reasonable protection as such, are excepted from the criminal provisions of the Canadian Antitrust statute. 63-64 V, C. 46, § 3. 8. LEADING DECISION QUOTED. Subject as Presented in Leading Decision.-Perhaps, without justly incurring the charge of overstaying our right to dwell upon the introductory portion of the subject embraced within this chapter, it may be well to quote the able disquisition presented in the dissenting opinion of Judge Caldwell, written in the year 1897:2 "While laborers, by the application to them of the doctrine we are considering, are reduced to individual action, it is not so with the forces arrayed against them. A corporation is an association of individuals for combined action; trusts are corporations combined together for the very purpose of collective action and boycotting; and capital, which is the product of labor, is in itself a powerful collective force. Indeed, according to this supposed rule, every corporation and trust in the country is an unlawful combination, for while its business may be of a kind that its individual members, each acting for himself, might lawfully conduct, the moment they enter into a combination to do that same thing by their combined effort, the combination becomes an unlawful conspiracy. But the rule is never so applied. Corporations and trusts and other combinations of individuals and aggregations of capital extend themselves. right and left through the entire community * * * crushing out all small dealers and producers, stifling competition, establish monopolies, reducing the wages of the laborer, raising the price of food ; and all these things are justified as a legitimate result of the evolution of industries resulting from new social and economic conditions, and of the right of every man to carry on his business as he sees fit, and of lawful competition. On the other hand, when laborers combine to maintain or raise their wages or otherwise to better their condition or to protect themselves from oppression or to attempt to overcome competition with their labor or the products of their labor in order that they may continue to have employment, and live, their action, however open, peaceful and 2 Hopkins v. Oxley Stove Co., 83 Fed. 912. orderly, is branded as a 'conspiracy.' What is 'competition' when done by capital, is 'conspiracy' when done by laborers. No amount of verbal dexterity can conceal or justify this glaring discrimination. If the vast aggregation and collective action of capital is not accompanied by a corresponding organization and collective action of labor, capital will speedily become proprietor of the wage earners as well as the recipient of the profits of their labor. This result can only be averted by some sort of organization that will secure the collective action of wage earners. This is demanded, not in the interest of the wage earners alone, but by the highest considerations of public policy." Owing to the plain statement thus afforded of the attitude which has prevailed in labor legislation as contained in the Clayton Law, it has been thought not only wise but a convenience to include an extract of some length from the foregoing decision. While it suggests the ardor of combat, it also sets forth in condensed form the rules and principles of thought which have overcome and replaced the doubt and distrust and the paternalism so apparent in the arguments advanced by Senator Edmunds, at the time when the Anti-trust laws had their inception. That Senator Edmunds was the exponent of a class is shown by the nearly unanimous approval of the bill which was prepared under his immediate scrutiny as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to which it was referred for its final redrafting, preparatory to actual enactment. Useful Comparison of Contrasting Sentiments.-The speech of Senator Edmunds, in substance, so far as it is relevant to this topic, appears at page 167; and comparison thereof with the glowing paragraphs from Judge Caldwell's decision, may be useful in this connection. Each of these sentiments is typical of a class; and their inclusion here will avoid the necessity for presenting a cumulative weight of authorities. Trades Unions Operate by Distinctive Methods.-Trades unions operate in ways unlike the methods of incorporated bodies; and it is not the slow increase by steady growth but the sudden display of strength through numbers and organization that has rendered the latter formidable. There is usually a sense of surprise when the trades union joins issue with a company of great resources, and the artizan through the power of combined labor |