PITNEY, MCKENNA, and VAN DEVANTER, JJ., dissenting. 244 U. S. and Liverpool, contrary to the prohibition of the Sherman Act. The Circuit Court, in declining to allow an injunction under the act, said: "This act makes all combinations in restraint of trade or commerce unlawful, and punishes them by fine or imprisonment, and authorizes suits at law for triple damages for its violation, but it gives no new right to bring a suit in equity, and a careful study of the act has brought me to the conclusion that suits in equity or injunction suits by any other than the government of the United States are not authorized by it." Evidently this was intended to be confined to the question of an express authorization of an injunction for a mere violation of the act, for the court proceeded to grant preventive relief on the ground that there was jurisdiction because of the citizenship of the parties, and that under the ordinary equity jurisdiction an injunction should issue because of the threatened irreparable injury and the inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and in order to prevent a multiplicity of suits. Upon appeal the decree was affirmed, upon the grounds expressed by the court below, 56 Fed. Rep. 696. Since there was no infringement of complainants' rights except through a combination in restraint of foreign trade, as to which manifestly the Sherman Act furnished the exclusive rule of law, the effect of the decision is to allow an injunction to one injured through a violation of that act if he show in addition the ordinary grounds for resorting to equity, such as the probability of irreparable mischief, the inadequacy of a pecuniary compensation, or the necessity of preventing a multitude of suits. So, in Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co. (C. C.), 155 Fed. Rep. 869, 876, the court, after reviewing the previous decisions, declared (p. 877): "They do not commend themselves to my judgment so far as they deny the right of a private party, who has sustained special injury by a violation of the Anti-trust Act, to relief by 244 U.S. PITNEY, MCKENNA, and VAN DEVANTER, JJ., dissenting. injunction under the general equity jurisdiction of the court. As already seen, the cases referred to do not generally announce such rule." 1 Aside from their rights under the Act of 1890, I think appellants are now entitled to an injunction under § 16 of the Clayton Act-the case clearly being within the terms of the section-notwithstanding the act took effect after the final decree in the District Court. In an equity suit for injunction the reviewing court should decide the case according to the law as it exists at the time of its decision. This is not giving a retrospective effect to the new statute, for the relief granted operates only in futuro. The suggestion, in behalf of defendants, that § 6 of the Clayton Act establishes a policy inconsistent with relief by injunction in such a case as the present, by making legitimate any acts or practices of labor organizations or their members that were unlawful before, is wholly inadmissible. The section prohibits restraining members of such organizations from "lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof." What these are is indicated by the qualifying words: "instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit." But these are protected only when "lawfully carried out." The section safeguards these organizations while pursuing their legitimate objects by lawful means, and prevents them from being considered, merely because organized, to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade. The section, fairly construed, has "Sec. 6. That the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws." PITNEY, MCKENNA, and VAN DEVANTER, JJ., dissenting. 244 U. S. no other or further intent or meaning. A reference to the legislative history of the measure confirms this view. House Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 2, 14-16; Senate Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d sess., pp. 1, 10, 46. Neither in the language of the section, nor in the committee reports, is there any indication of a purpose to render lawful or legitimate anything that before the act was unlawful, whether in the objects of such an organization or its members or in the measures adopted for accomplishing them. It is altogether fallacious, I think, to say that what is being done by the present defendants is done only for the purpose of strengthening the union. Conceding this purpose to be lawful, it does not justify or excuse the resort to unlawful measures for its accomplishment. A member of a labor union may refuse to work with nonunion men, but this does not entitle him to threaten manufacturers for whom he is not working, and with whom he has no concern, with loss of trade and a closing of the channels of interstate commerce against their products if they do not conduct their business in a manner satisfactory to him. And the suggestion that, before the Clayton Act, unlawful practices of this kind were usually and notoriously resorted to by labor unions, and that for this reason Congress must have intended to describe them as "legitimate objects," and thus render lawful what before was unlawful, is a libel upon the labor organizations and a serious impeachment of Congress. Nor can I find in § 20 of the Clayton Act anything interfering with the right of complainants to an injunction. It refers only to cases "between an employer and employees, or between employers and employees, or between employees, or between persons employed and persons seeking employment, involving, or growing out of, a dispute concerning terms or conditions of employment." 244 U. S. PITNEY, MCKENNA, and VAN DEVANTER, JJ., dissenting. These words evidently relate to suits arising from strikes and similar controversies, and the committee reports upon the bill bear out this view of the scope of the section. But this is not such a suit. There is no relation of employer and employee, either present or prospective, between the parties in this case. Defendants who are employees are in one branch of industry in New York City; complainants are employers of labor in another branch of industry in distant States. Nor is there any dispute between them concerning terms or conditions of employment. Section 20 prohibits an injunction restraining any person "from ceasing to patronize or to employ any party to such dispute, or from recommending, advising, or persuading others by peaceful and lawful means so to do; or from peaceably assembling in a lawful manner, and for lawful purposes; or from doing any act or thing which might lawfully be done in the absence of such dispute by any party thereto." Clearly, this provision is limited to the participants in a dispute of the character just indicated. And, quite as clearly, only "lawful" measures are sanctioned that is, of course, measures that were lawful before the act. There is no grant, in terms or by necessary inference, of immunity in favor of a boycott of traders in interstate commerce, violative of the provisions of the Sherman Act, to which the Clayton Act is supplemental. MR. JUSTICE MCREYNOLDS also dissents. Counsel for Appellants. 244 U.S. HOPKINS ET AL. v. WALKER ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA. No. 234. Submitted October 18, 1915.-Decided June 11, 1917. A case arises under the laws of the United States where an appropriate statement of the plaintiff's cause of action, unaided by any anticipation or avoidance of defenses, discloses that it really and substantially involves a controversy respecting the validity, construction or effect of a law of Congress. A substantial controversy respecting the construction and effect of the mining laws is presented by a case in which the plaintiff sets up title under a placer patent, alleging that the locus in quo was not known to contain lodes when the patent was applied for and was so adjudged against strangers to the suit who adversed the application, and in which the defendants, notwithstanding such judgments, claim the same ground under other lode locations made after the patent and embracing claims of the width of 600 feet, while plaintiff contends 25 feet would be the maximum if the ground remained subject to lode location. In a suit to remove a particular cloud from the plaintiff's title, the facts showing that title and the existence and invalidity of the instrument or record sought to be eliminated as a cloud are essential parts of the plaintiff's cause of action and must be alleged in the bill. The rule is the same in respect of suits to remove clouds under § 6115 of the Montana Codes of 1907, as distinguished from suits to quiet title under § 6870. Recorded certificates of location are the first muniment of the locator's paper title and, when verified, are, in Montana, made prima facie evidence of all facts properly recited in them (Codes 1907, §§ 2284, 2285); and so, when apparently valid but actually, under the mining laws, invalid, they may becloud the title injuriously. Reversed. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. L. O. Evans, Mr. W. B. Rodgers, Mr. D. Gay Stivers, |