I will expect you to keep your mouth shut about what happens here.

C. Then you want me to pay you money to stop this trouble? W. Yes.

C. Don't you know that we are working on government stuff?

W. Yes.

C. Don't you know that they shoot men in France for doing anything like you are doing at a plant where they are making supplies for the government?

W. I don't know anything about it.

C. But we are working for the government.
W. I cannot help that.

C. Well, suppose I did not pay you the money, what would you do?

W. I would stay in Philadelphia and continue to picket your place and cause you all the trouble I can.

C. You mean you would try to stop men from going to work and prevent us from fulfilling our contracts with the government?

W. (Walsh laughs.) Well, you know my proposition. (At this point Walsh held a lengthy conversation about the union men and who had organized Mr. Cadwalader's shop.)

C. Well, I am not interested in union matters. How much money do you want me to give you?

W. Well, I have got to get my furniture out of storage and ship it to West Virginia.

C. Well, I don't believe in paying money to any one to run my plant, but I guess I must do it or you will cause trouble. W. Yes, I will stay up here and continue to work just as hard as ever to stop you from running.

C. Well, how much money do you want?

W. I would rather let you make a proposition.

C. Give me an estimate of about how much you would Do you want $100?

want.

W. (Laughing.) That would not get me out of town.
C. Well, suppose I give you $200?

W. No, that would not be enough.

C. Well, I will tell you what I will do. Here is $100; here is $200, and there is $200. Is that enough?

W. No, I will tell you, Mr. Cadwalader; I have figured out that it will cost me $235 to get my furniture to Roanoke, and then I must start my wife to housekeeping. It may take some time before I get a job, as I do not know what arrangements I can make with my father.

C. Well, do you want $400? There is $400.

W. No; tell you what I will do. I will make you a good square proposition. You give me $500 and I will arrange to leave town within four days. For a bluff I will go up around the plant as usual, and then I will frame it up with my mother to send me a telegram saying my wife is ill.

C. Well, if I must pay $500 to run my plant peacefully, here is your money.

W. Now, just a minute; I want you to promise me that you won't say a word to any one about this, because it would get around among the pickets and I would be blackmailed from the International Molders' Union at Cincinnati.

C. Well, I won't tell Cronin, because I have no business. with him, and he cannot come into my office.

W. Will you promise not to tell the men who are picketing, or the men in the shop that I am doing this.

C. I have nothing to do with the union men, but I will tell Mr. Morris.

W. I don't mind that.

Charges Blackmail and Extortion

When enough of the conversation on which to base an affidavit had been procured, Detective Carl Davis, of the O'Farrell forces went in an automobile to the office of Magistrate George A. Persch, at 1210 Pine street, and swore out a warrant charging Walsh with attempted blackmail and extortion.

Constable Isaac Wilderman returned to the hotel with Davis and a few minutes later, when Walsh had taken the $500 and bid goodby to Cadwalader, entered the room and arrested him. Walsh had the money in his hand, but upon being grabbed by the officer and told that he was under arrest, dropped it.

"I didn't know I was being 'framed-up,' he said. "You have no right to arrest an innocent workingman.”

Walsh will have a hearing this morning at 10 o'clock before Magistrate Persch.

While neither the detectives nor Mr. Cadwalader would make any statement, it is believed that the officers are after men higher up in the union's organization, and that further arrests will be made shortly, following Walsh's disclosures.

James C. Cronin, president of local No. 15, International Molders' Union, from whom Walsh said he received his orders, when seen late yesterday afternoon, declared he thought the Cresson-Morris Company officials and the detectives had “been doing some framing-up," but declined to discuss the matter further.

Threaten to Continue Strike

When asked what the attitude of the molders' union is toward companies having government contracts, he replied that the strike at the Cresson-Morris Company's shops had been declared before the war, and that so far as he knew it would be continued.

"I cannot stop it," he said, “nor could Walsh. No one man can stop it."

Walsh, he said, had charge of the men who were doing picket duty in front of the Cresson-Morris Company's shops. He said that Walsh would probably be expelled from the union if it turns out that he attempted to "discredit" the union in any way.

"I know nothing about the case except what I have learned from you newspaper men," he said. "But it will all probably come out in the courts, and then everybody will have a fair show.

Gouveneur Cadwalader, in talking with newspaper men following the arrest of Walsh, declared that the strike against his company's shops is unfair, and he said he could not understand why the union would continue the strike during the present crisis. According to him, the Cresson-Morris Company is paying higher wages than asked by the union, but the company refuses to recognize the union and employ none but union men, and it is to force recognition of the union that the strike is being continued. It was called on July 5, 1916.-Philadelphia North American.

U. S. SUPREME COURT DECIDES PAINE LUMBER COMPANY CASE

Case Dismissed by Divided Court. All Important Legal Questions, However, Decided in Favor of the Plaintiffs

A most important decision in regard to "Closed shop" agreements, through which the manufacturers agree to employ union men exclusively and the union agrees to call strikes whenever the use of non-union material is attempted, was rendered by the U. S. Supreme Court, June 11th, in the socalled Paine Lumber Company Case. The following analysis of the decision is furnished by the Counsel of the American Anti-Boycott Association:

The long-delayed decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of the Paine Lumber Company and others was rendered on June 11th, and while the case is dismissed by a divided court, all of the important legal questions upon which such momentous consequences hung, have been determined in favor of the plaintiffs. The difficulty of the questions involved is shown by the fact that the court, after holding the case over two years and ordering a re-argument on its own motion, is now divided on a number of different points.

The case was instituted in April, 1911, by eight open shop manufacturers of doors, sash, wood trim, etc., who were shut out of the New York market by a combination in restraint of trade. The defendants were (1) representatives of the Carpenters' Union, an organization of 200,000 members; (2) Local Union manufacturers of wood trim who unionized on condition that the carpenters would call strikes against the material of open shop competitors; (3) and about 100 builders who had entered into agreements not to use open shop woodwork. The proofs showed that the Carpenters' Union forbade its members to handle the open shop woodwork and that in view of the power of the Building Trades Unions requiring the employment of union men exclusively in all trades, it was practically impossible to erect a building with open shop woodwork in New York City. By repeated strikes, contractors and dealers were

forced into written agreements not to use the open shop products and prescribing a large forfeiture for so doing. The result was a general abandonment of this open shop material in the New York building trades and the substantial exclusion of the plaintiffs from the New York market.

At the outset a preliminary injunction was granted, and on final hearing the District Court, which was later sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals, held that the combination violated the Sherman Anti-Trust law and the State Anti-Trust laws, but that a private party was not entitled to an injunction against such acts, his remedy being limited to an action at law for treble damages while the right to the injunctive remedy was confined to the Attorney General by the wording of the Act.

After the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the final judgment of dismissal on April 7th, 1914, the Clayton Act of October 15th, 1914, was passed, clearly giving the right of injunction to a private party, in addition to the remedy at law for treble damages. The case then came before the Supreme Court of the United States on the plaintiffs' appeal, and the questions presented and disposed of by that court in its recent opinion are of the utmost importance.

1. The justices are in general agreement that the combination violates the Federal Anti-Trust law. Justice Pitney in his dissenting opinion states: "There is no serious dispute about it here," and "the proofs render it clear that defendants. are engaged in a boycotting combination in restraint of interstate commerce prohibited by and actionable under the Sherman law." It is, therefore, well settled that the combination in question constituted an unlawful combination in restraint of trade within the definition set forth in the Danbury Hatters'

case.

2. The majority of the court are of the opinion that under the provisions of the Clayton Act, amending the Sherman Act in that respect, an injunction suit of this kind can now be maintained, but that under the original Anti-Trust law as it existed at the time this case went to final judgment, a private party had no right to injunctive relief. For this reason and this reason alone, the case was dismissed.