Melville Fuller

“ If the purposes of the combination were, as alleged, to prevent any interstate transportation at all, the fact that the means operated at one end before physical transportation commenced, and, at the other end, after the physical transportation ended, was immaterial.
Nor can the act in question be held inapplicable because defendants were not themselves engaged in interstate commerce. The act made no distinction between classes. It provided that 'every' contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade was illegal. ”

“ 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. ”

“ When the acts consist of making a combination calculated to cause temporal damage, the power to punish such acts, when done maliciously, cannot be denied because they are to be followed and worked out by conduct which might have been lawful if not preceded by the acts. No conduct has such an absolute privilege as to justify all possible schemes of which it may be a part. ”

“ Rep. 307, which was an action brought by a private citizen under § 7 against a combination engaged in the manufacture of tiles, defendants were wholesale dealers in tiles in California, and combined with manufacturers in other states to restrain the interstate traffic in tiles by refusing to sell any tiles to any wholesale dealer in California who was not a member of the association, except at a prohibitive rate. The case was a commercial boycott against such dealers in California as would not or could not obtain membership in the association. ”

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

“ On July 25, 1902, the plaintiffs had made preparations to do a large and profitable business with said wholesale dealers in other states, and the condition of their business was such as to warrant the full belief that the ensuing year would be the most successful in their experience. Their factory was then running to its full capacity in filling a large number of orders from such wholesale dealers in other states. ”

“ Triest & Company 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 & Company, 116 Sansome street, San Francisco. ”

“ And then followed the averments that the defendants proceeded to carry out their combination to restrain and destroy interstate trade and commerce between plaintiffs and their customers in other states by employing the identical means contrived for that purpose; and that, by reason of those acts, plaintiffs were damaged in their business and property in some $80,000. ”

“ On July 25, 1902, the amount of capital invested by the plaintiffs in said business of making and selling hats approximated $130,000, and the value of the hats annually sold and shipped by them in previous years, to said dealers in states other than Connecticut, exceeded $400,000, while the value of hats sold by them in the state of Connecticut did not exceed $10,000. ”

“ Rep. 900. The bill in that case was filed by the United States against the officers of the American Railway Union, which alleged that a labor dispute existed between the Pullman Palace Car Company and its employees; that thereafter the four officers of the railway union combined together and with others to compel an adjustment of such dispute by creating a boycott against the cars of the car company; that, to make such boycott effective, they had already prevented certain of the railroads running out of Chicago from operating their trains ”

“ They were then employing about 160 men in the making and finishing departments, a large number in the trimming and other departments, whose work was dependent upon the previous work of the makers and finishers, and they then had about 150 dozens of hats in process of manufacture, and in such condition as to be perishable and ruined if work was stopped upon them. ”