to entirely destroy defendants' business and thereby include intrastate trade as well; that physical obstruction is not alleged as contemplated; and that defendants are not themselves engaged in interstate trade.

We think none of these objections are tenable, and that they are disposed of by previous decisions of this court.

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association (166 U. S., 290), United States v. Joint Traffic Association (171 U. S., 505), and Northern Securities Company v. United States (193 U. S., 197) hold in effect that the antitrust law has a broader application than the prohibition of restraints of trade unlawful at common law. Thus in the Trans-Missouri case it was said that, "Assuming that agreements of this nature are not void at common law, and that the

yielding to the demand of the defendants and their agents, by the said factory of said Roelofs & Co. being unionized, as termed by the defendants, and into agreeing to employ, and employing exclusively, members of their said combination in the making and finishing departments of said factory, and in large measure surrendering to the defendants and their agents the control of said factory and business, all of which was well known to the plaintiffs, their customers, wholesale dealers, and the public, and was, by the defendants and their agents, widely proclaimed through all their agencies above mentioned, in connection with their acts against the plaintiffs, as hereinafter set forth, for the purpose of intimidating and coercing said wholesale dealers and their customers from buying the hats of the plaintiffs, by creating in their minds the fear that the defendants would invoke and put into operation against them, all said powerful means, measures, and machinery, if they should handle the hats of the plaintiffs. "16. The defendants, together with the other persons united with them in said combination, known as The United Hatters of North America, have been for many years, and now are, engaged in a combined scheme and effort to force all manufacturers of fur hats in the United States, including the plaintiffs, against their will and their previous policy of carrying on their business, to organize their workmen in the departments of making and finishing, in each of their factories, into an organization, to be part and parcel of the said combination known as The United Hatters of North America, or as the defendants and their confederates term it, to unionize their shops, with the intent thereby to control the employment of labor in and the operation of said factories, and to subject the same to the direction and control of persons, other than the owners of the same, in a manner extremely onerous and distasteful to such owners, and to carry out such scheme, effort, and purpose, by restraining and destroying the interstate trade and commerce of such manufacturers, by means of intimidation of and threats made to such manufacturers and their customers in the several States, of boycotting them, their product, and their customers, using therefor all the powerful means at their command as aforesaid, until such time as from the damage and loss of business resulting therefrom, the said manufacturers should yield to the said demand to unionize their factories.

"17. The defendants and other members of said United Hatters of North America, acting with them and in pursuance of said general combined scheme and purpose, and in carrying the same into effect against said manufacturers, including the plaintiffs, and by use of the means above stated, and the fear thereof, have within a very few years, forced the following named manufacturers of hats in the United States to yield to their demand, and unionize their factories, viz.: [Here follow 70 names of corporations and individuals.] And until there remained, according to the statements of the defendants, only twelve hat factories in the United States which had not submitted to their said demands, and the defendants, in pursuing their warfare against the plaintiffs, as hereinafter set forth, and in connection with their said acts against them, have made public announcement of that fact and of the firms so coerced by them, in order thereby to increase the effectiveness of their acts in intimidating said wholesale dealers and their customers in States other than Connecticut, from buying hats from plaintiffs, as hereinafter set forth.

"18. To carry out said scheme and purpose, the defendants have appointed and employed and do steadily employ, certain special agents to act in their behalf, with full and express authority from them and the other members of said combination, and under explicit instructions from them, to use every means in their power, to compel all such manufacturers of hats to so unionize their factories, and each and all

various cases cited by the learned courts below show it, the answer to the statement of their validity is to be found in the terms of the statute under consideration;" and in the Northern Securities case that "the act declares illegal every contract, combination, or conspiracy in whatever form, of whatever nature, and whoever may

of the defendants in this suit did the several acts hereinafter stated, either by themselves or their agents, by them thereto fully authorized.

"19. On or about March 1, 1901, in pursuance of said general scheme and purpose, the defendants and the other members of said combination, The United Hatters of North America, through their agents, the said John A. Moffit, Martin Lawlor, John Phillips, James P. Maher, and Charles J. Barrett, who acted for themselves and the other defendants, demanded of the plaintiffs that they should unionize their said factory, in the making and finishing departments, and also thereby acquire the right to use and use the said union label, subject to the right of the defendants to recall the same at pleasure, in all hats made by them, and then notified the plaintiffs that if they failed to yield to said demand, the defendants and all the other members of the said combination known as The United Hatters of North America, would resort to their said usual and well-known methods to compel them so to do. After several conferences, and in April, 1901, the plaintiffs replied to the said demand of the defendants as follows:

"Firmly believing that we are acting for the best interests of our firm, for the best interests of those whom we employ, and for the best interests of Danbury, by operating an independent or open factory, we hereby notify you that we decline to have our shop unionized, and if attacked, shall use all lawful means to protect our business interests.'

"The plaintiffs were then employing many union and nonunion men, and their said factory was running smoothly and satisfactory both to the plaintiffs and their employees. The defendants, their confederates and agents, deferred the execution of their said threat against the plaintiffs until the conclusion of their attack made in pursuance of the same general scheme and purpose against H. H. Roelofs & Co., which resulted in the surrender of Roelofs & Co. on July 15, 1902, except that the defendants, their confederates and agents, in November, 1901, caused the said American Federation of Labor to declare a boycott against any dealer or dealers who should handle the products of the plaintiffs.

20. On or about July 25, 1902, the defendants, individually and collectively, and as members of said combinations and associations, and with other persons whose names are unknown to the plaintiffs, associated with them, in pursuance of the general scheme and purpose aforesaid, to force all manufacturers of fur hats, and particuJarly the plaintiffs, to so unionize their factories, wantonly, wrongfully, maliciously, unlawfully, and in violation of the provisions of the act of Congress approved July 2, 1890,' and entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' and with intent to injure the property and business of the plaintiffs by means of acts done which are forbidden and declared to be unlawful, by said act of Congress, entered into a combination and conspiracy to restrain the plaintiffs and their customers in States other than Connecticut, in carrying on said trade and commerce among the several States and to wholly prevent them from engaging in and carrying on said trade and commerce between them and to prevent the plaintiffs from selling their hats to wholesale dealers and purchasers in said States other than Connecticut, and to prevent said dealers and customers in said other States from buying the same, and to prevent the plaintiffs from obtaining orders for their hats from such customers, and filling the same, and shipping said hats to said customers in said States as aforesaid, and thereby injure the plaintiffs in their property and business and to render unsalable the product and output of their said factory, so the subject of interstate commerce, in whosoever's hands the same might be or come, through said interstate trade and commerce, and to employ as means to carry out said combination and conspiracy and the purpose thereof, and accomplish the same, the following measures and acts, viz:

"To cause, by means of threats and coercion, and without warning or information to the plaintiffs, the concerted and simultaneous withdrawal of all the makers and finishers of hats then working for them, who were not members of their said combination, The United Hatters of North America, as well as those who were such members, and thereby cripple the operation of the plaintiffs' factory, and prevent the plaintiffs from filling a large number of orders then on hand, from such wholesale dealers in States other than Connecticut, which they had engaged to fill and were then in the act of filling, as was well known to the defendants; in connection therewith to declare

be the parties to it, which directly or necessarily operates in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States."

We do not pause to comment on cases such as United States v. Knight (156 U. S., 1), Hopkins v. United States (171 U. S., 578), and Anderson v. United States (id. 604), in which the undisputed facts

a boycott against all hats made for sale and sold and delivered, or to be sold or deliv ered, by the plaintiffs to said wholesale dealers in States other than Connecticut, and to actively boycott the same and the business of those who should deal in them, and thereby prevent the sale of the same by those in whose hands they might be or come through said interstate trade in said several States; to procure and cause others of said combinations united with them in said American Federation of Labor in like manner to declare a boycott against and to actively boycott the same and the business of such wholesale dealers as should buy or sell them and of those who should purchase them from such wholesale dealers; to intimidate such wholesale dealers from purchasing or dealing in the hats of the plaintiff by informing them that the American Federation of Labor had declared a boycott against the product of the plaintiffs and against any dealer who should handle it, and that the same was to be actively pressed against them, and by distributing circulars containing notices that such dealers and their customers were to be boycotted; to threaten with a boycott those customers who should buy any goods whatever, even though union made, of such boycotted dealers, and at the same time to notify such wholesale dealers that they were at liberty to deal in the hats of any other nonunion manufacturer of similar quality to those made by the plaintiffs, but must not deal in the hats made by the plaintiffs under threats of such boycotting; to falsely represent to said wholesale dealers and their customers that the plaintiffs had discriminated against the union men in their employ, had thrown them out of employment because they refused to give up their union cards and teach boys who were intended to take their places after seven months' instruction, and had driven their employees to extreme measures by their persistent, unfair, and un-American policy of antagonizing union labor, forcing wages to a starvation scale, and given boys and cheap unskilled foreign labor preference over experienced and capable union workmen, in order to intimidate said dealers from purchasing said hats by reason of the prejudice thereby created against the plaintiffs and the hats made by them among those who might otherwise purchase them; to use the said union label of said The United Hatters of North America as an instrument to aid them in carrying out said conspiracy and combination against the plaintiffs and their customers' intertrade aforesaid, and in connection with the boycotting above mentioned, for the purpose of describing and identifying the hats of the plaintiffs and singling them out to be so boycotted; to employ a large number of agents to visit said wholesale dealers and their customers at their several places of business and threaten them with loss of business if they should buy or handle the hats of the plaintiffs, and thereby prevent them from buying said hats, and in connection therewith to cause said dealers to be waited upon by committees representing large combinations of persons in their several localities to make similar threats to them; to use the daily press in the localities where such wholesale dealers reside and do business to announce and advertise the said boycotts against the hats of the plaintiffs and said wholesale dealers, and thereby make the same more effective and oppressive, and to use the columns of their said paper, The Journal of the United Hatters of North America, for that purpose, and to describe the acts of their said agents in prosecuting the same.

21. Afterwards, to wit, on July 25, 1902, and on divers days since hitherto, the defendants, in pursuance of said combination and conspiracy, and to carry the same into effect, did cause the concerted and simultaneous withdrawal, by means of threats and coercion made by them, and without previous warning or informatio thereof to the plaintiffs, of all but ten of the nonunion makers and finishers of ats then working for them, as well as all of their union makers and finishers eaving large numbers of hats in an unfinished and perishable condition; with intet to cripple, and did thereby cripple, the operation of the plaintiffs' factory url the latter part of October, 1902, and thereby prevented the plaintiffs from filling a large number of orders then on hand from such wholesale dealers in States other than Connecticut, which they had engaged to fill and were then in the act of siling, as well known to the defendants, and thereby caused the loss to the plaints of many orders from said wholesale dealers in other States and greatly hinded and delayed them in filling such orders; and falsely representing to said wholesale dealers, their customers, and the public generally in States other than Connecticut, that the plaintiffs

showed that the purpose of the agreement was not to obstruct or restrain interstate commerce. The object and intention of the combination determined its legality.

In Swift v. United States (196 U.S.,395), a bill was brought against a number of corporations, firms and individuals of different States, alleging that they were engaged in interstate commerce in the purchase, sale,

had discriminated against the union men in their employ, and had discharged or thrown out of employment their union men in August, 1902; that they had driven their employees to extreme measures by their persistent, unfair, and un-American policy of antagonizing union labor, forcing wages down to a starvation scale, and giving boys and cheap unskilled foreign labor preference over experienced and capable workmen; that skilled hatters had been discharged from said factory for no other cause than their devotion and adherence to the principles of organized labor in refusing to give up their union cards and to teach the trade to boys who were intended to take the place of union workmen after seven months' instruction; and that unable to submit longer to a system of petty tyrannies that might be tolerated in Siberia, but could not be borne by independent Americans, the workmen in the factory inaugurated the strike to compel the firm to recognize their rights, in order to prejudice, and did thereby prejudice the public, against the plaintiffs and their product, and in order to intimidate, and did thereby intimidate said wholesale dealers and their customers in States other than Connecticut from purchasing hats from the plaintiffs by reason of the fear of the prejudice created against said hats; and in connection therewith declared a boycott against all hats made for and so sold and delivered, and to be so sold and delivered to said wholesale dealers, in States other than Connecticut, and actively boycotted the same and the business of those who dealt in them in such other States, and thereby restrained and prevented the purchase of the same from the plaintiffs, and the sale of the same by those in whose hands they were, or might thereafter be, in the course of such interstate trade, and caused and procured others of said combinations united with them in the said American Federation of Labor to declare a boycott against the plaintiffs, their product and against the business of such wholesale dealers in States other than Connecticut, as should buy or sell them, and of those who should purchase from such wholesale dealers any goods whatever, and further intimidated said wholesale dealers from purchasing or dealing in hats made by the plaintiffs, as aforesaid, by informing them that the American Federation of Labor had declared a boycott against the hats of the plaintiffs and against any dealer who should handle them, and that said boycott was to be actively pressed against them, and by sending agents and committees from various of said labor organizations, to threaten said wholesale dealers and their customers with a boycott from them if they purchased or handled the goods of plaintiffs, and by distributing in San Francisco, Cal., and other places, circulars containing notices that such dealers, and their customers were to be boycotted, and threatened with a boycott, and did actively boycott the customers who did or should buy any goods whatever, even though union made, of such wholesale dealers so boycotted, and used the daily press to advertise and announce said boycott and the measures taken in pursuance thereof by said labor organizations, particularly The San Francisco Bulletin, in it issues of July 2 and July 4, 1903, and a daily paper published in Richmond, Va., on December 10, 1902, and notified such wholesale dealers in States other than Connecticut that they were at liberty to deal in the hats of any other nonunion hat manufacturer of similar quality to those of the plaintiffs, but they must not deal in hats made by the plaintiffs, under threats of being boycotted for so doing, and used the said union label of the United Hatters of North America as an instrument to aid them in carrying out said combination and conspiracy gainst the plaintiffs' and their customers' interstate trade, as aforesaid, and in connectic with such boycotting by using the same and its absence from the hats of the plaintiffs, an insignia or device to indicate to the purchaser that the hats of the plaintiffs were toe boycotted, and to point them out for that purpose, and employed a large number of gents to visit said wholesale dealers and their customers at their several places of business in each of said States, particularly Philadelphia and other places in the State of Pennsylvania, in Baltimore in the State of Maryland, in Richmond and other places in the rate of Virginia, and in San Francisco and other places in the State of California, to intimidate and threaten them if they should continue to deal in or handle the hats of the plaintiffs, and among many other instances of like kind, the said William C. Hennelly and Daniel P. Kelly in behalf of all said defendants, and acting for them, demanded the firm of Triest & Co., wholesale dealers in hats, doing business in said San Francisco. that they should agree not to buy or deal in the hats made by

transportation and delivery, and subsequent resale at the point of delivery, of meats; and that they combined to refrain from bidding against each other in the purchase of cattle; to maintain a uniform price at which the meat should be sold; and to maintain uniform charges in delivering meats thus sold through the channels of interstate trade to the various dealers and consumers in other States. And that thus they artificially restrained commerce in fresh meats

the plaintiffs, under threats made by them to said firm of boycotting their business and that of their customers, and upon their refusing to comply with such demand and yield to such threats, the defendants by their said agents caused announcement to be made in the newspapers of said city that said Triest & Co. were to be boycotted therefor, and that the labor council of San Francisco would be addressed by them for that purpose, and that they had procured a boycott to be declared by said labor council, and thereupon the defendants, through their said agents, Hennelly and Kelly, printed, published, issued, and distributed to the retail dealers in hats, in several States upon the Pacific coast, the following circular, to wit:

(San Francisco Labor Council, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, Secretary's office, 927 Market street, Rooms 405, 406, 407 Emma Spreckel's Building. Meets every Friday, at 1159 Mission street. Telephone South 447. Address all communications to 927 Market street.)

To whom it may concern·

SAN FRANCISCo, July 3, 1903.

At a special meeting of the San Francisco Labor Council, held on the above date, the hat jobbing concern known as Triest & Co., 116 Sansome street, San Francisco, was declared unfair for persistently patronizing the unfair hat manufacturing concern of D. E. Loewe & Co., Danbury, Conn., where the union hatters have been on strike, for union conditions, since August 20, 1902. Triest & Co. will be retained on the unfair list as long as they handle the product of this unfair hat manufacturing concern. Union men do not usually patronize retail stores who buy from unfair jobbing houses or manufacturers. Under these circumstances, all friends of organized labor, and those desiring the patronage of organized workers, will not buy goods from Triest & Co., 116 Sansome street, San Francisco.

G. B. BENHAM,

President S. F. Labor Council.

(San Francisco Labor Council, affiliated with American Federation of Labor, Secretary's office, 927 Market street, rooms 405, 406, 407 Emma Spreckel's Building, meets every Friday at 1159 Mission street, telephone South 447. Address all communications to 927 Market street.)

Messrs.

SAN FRANCISCo, July 14, 1903.

GENTLEMEN: We beg leave to call your attention to the following products which are on the unfair list of the American Federation of Labor.

We do this in order that you refrain from handling these goods, as the patronage of the firms named below is taken by the organized workers as an evidence of a desire to patronize those who are opposed to the interests of organized labor. The declaration of unfairness regarding the firms mentioned is fully sanctioned and will be supported to the fullest degree by the San Francisco Labor Council.

Trusting that you will be able to avoid the handling of these goods in the future, we G. B. BENHAM, President.

are,

Yours, respectfully,

T. E. ZANT, Secretary. [L. s.]

[Unfair list.]

Loewe & Co., Danbury, Conn., and Triest & Co., 116 Sansome street, San Francisco, hat manufacturers;

Cluett, Peabody & Co., shirts and collars, Troy, N. Y., and 562 Mission street, San Francisco, Cal.;

United Shirt and Collar Company, Troy, N. Y., and 25 Sansome street, San Francisco, Cal.;