Summary

George Sutherland Bedford Cut Stone Company v. Journeyman Stone Cutters' Association of North America…

The combination there condemned was not, as here, the co-operation for self-protection only of men in a single craft. It was an effort to win by invoking the aid of others, both organized and unorganized, not concerned in the trade dispute. The conduct there condemned was not, as here, a mere refusal to finish particular work begun 'by men working in opposition to' the union. It was the institution of a general boycott, not only of the business of the employer, but of the businesses of all who should participate in the marketing, installation, or exhibition of its product.
Source: Wikisource

George Sutherland Bedford Cut Stone Company v. Journeyman Stone Cutters' Association of North America…

United Shoe Machinery Co., 247 U.S. 32, 38 S.C.t. 473, 62 L. Ed. 968, to permit capitalists to combine in another corporation practically the whole shoe machinery industry of the country, necessarily giving it a position of dominance over shoe manufacturing in America. It would, indeed, be strange if Congress had by the same act willed to deny to members of a small craft of workingmen the right to cooperate in simply refraining from work, when that course was the only means of self-protection against a combination of militant and powerful employers.
Source: Wikisource

George Sutherland Bedford Cut Stone Company v. Journeyman Stone Cutters' Association of North America…

If, in the struggle for existence, individual working men may, under any circumstances, co-operate in this way for self-protection even though the interstate trade of another is thereby restrained, the lower courts were clearly right in denying the injunction sought by plaintiffs. I have no occasion to consider whether the restraint, which was applied wholly intrastate, became in its operation a direct restraint upon interstate commerce.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature