National Ass of Window Glass Mfrs v. United States v. 22 23, 1923, 353
| Citation | 263 U.S. 403,68 L.Ed. 358,44 S.Ct. 148 |
| Decision Date | 10 December 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 353,353 |
| Parties | NATIONAL ASS'N OF WINDOW GLASS MFRS. et al. v. UNITED STATES. Argued Nov. 22-23, 1923 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Mr. John W. Davis, and Mr. Montgomery B. Angell of New York City, for appellants.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 403-405 intentionally omitted] Mr. Solicitor General Beck, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Robert P. Reeder for the United states.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 405-409 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Pierre A. White, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. I. L. Bradwin, Mr. R. M. Calfee and Mr. A. O. Dickey were on the brief.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 409-411 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a proceeding brought by the United States under the Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, § 4 (26 Stat. 209 [Comp. St. § 8823]), to prevent an alleged violation of section 1 (Comp. St. § 8820), which forbids combinations in restraint of trade among the States. The defendants are all the manufacturers of handblown window glass, with certain of their officers, and the National Window Glass Workers, a voluntary association, its officers and members, embracing all the labor to be had for this work in the United States. The defendants established a wage scale to be in effect from September 25, 1922, to January 27, 1923, and from January 29, 1923, to June 11, 1923; and the feature that is the object of the present attack is that this scale would be issued to one set of factories for the first period and to another for the second, but that no factory could get it for both, and without it they could not get labor and therefore must stop work. After a hearing a final decree was entered enjoining the defendants from carrying out the above or any similar agreements so far as they might limit and prescribe the time during which the defendant manufacturers should operate their factories for handblown window glass. 287 Fed. 228.
This agreement does not concern sales or distribution, it is directed only to the way in which union labor, the only labor obtainable it is true, shall be employed in production. If such an agreement can be within the Sherman Act at least it is not necessarily so. United Mine Workers of America v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U. S. 344, 408, 42 Sup. Ct. 570, 66 L. Ed. 975. To determine its legality requires a consideration of the particular facts. Board of Trade of Chicago v. United States, 246 U. S. 231, 238, 38 Sup. Ct. 242, 62 L. Ed. 683, Ann. Cas. 1918D, 1207.
The dominant fact in this case is that in the last quarter of a century machines have been brought into use that dispense with the employment of the highly trained blowers and the trained gatherers needed for the handmade glass and in that and other ways have enabled the factories using machines to produce window glass at half the cost of the handmade. The price for the two kinds is the same. It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Apex Hosiery Co v. Leader
...Foundries case, supra, 257 U.S. 209, 42 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed. 189, 27 A.L.R. 360, supra; National Ass'n of Window Glass Manufacturers v. United States, 263 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct. 148, 68 L.Ed. 358.24 And in any case, the restraint here is, as we have seen, of a different kind and has not been show......
-
United States v. Sugar Institute
...taken. Cf. Chicago Board of Trade v. U. S., 246 U.S. 231, 38 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed. 683 (1918); National Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs. v. U. S., 263 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct 148, 68 L.Ed. 358 (1923). Legal Consequences of Defendants' Actions. 1. That the anti-trust laws allow competitors a broad field ......
-
United Mine Workers of America v. Pennington Local Union No 189, Amalgamated Meat Cutters, and Butcher Workmen of North America v. Jewel Tea Company
...of Musicians, 318 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 665, 87 L.Ed. 1120, affirming 47 F.Supp. 304 (D.C.N.D.Ill); National Ass'n of Window Glass Mfrs. v. United States, 263 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct. 148, 68 L.Ed. 358; cf. Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, etc., Union, Local 309 v. Hanke, 339 U.S. 470, 475, 70 S.Ct. 773......
-
CONNELL CONST. CO., INC. v. Plumbers & Steam. Loc. U. No. 100
...Steel Foundries Case, supra, 257 U.S. 209, 42 S.Ct. 78, 66 L.Ed. 189, 27 A.L.R. 360, supra; National Ass\'n of Window Glass Manufacturers v. United States, 263 U.S. 403, 44 S.Ct. 148, 68 L.Ed. 358. 310 U.S. at 503-504, 60 S.Ct. at 997-998 (Emphasis supplied). So, while basically this case e......
-
Antitrust and Platform Monopoly.
...in that particular industry." For a historically similar approach, see National Ass'n of Window Glass Manufacturers v. United States, 263 U.S. 403 (1923), which upheld an agreement to shut down production during wartime in alternating periods negotiated between manufacturers and labor. Such......
-
The Economic Philosophy of Anti-Trust Legislation
...v. Pathé Exchange, 241 (1918); National Assn. of Window Glass Inc., 263 U. S. 291 (1923); Brims v. U. S., M’frs. v. U. S., 263 U. S. 403 (1923); U. S. v. 272 U. S. 549 (1926); Bedford Cut Stone Co., v. New York Coffee Exchange, 263 U. S. 611 (1924); Journeymen Stonecutters’ Assn. 274......