Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:31:56.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Red Jacket Revisited: The Case that Unraveled John J. Parker's Supreme Court Appointment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Peter Graham Fish
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before a gathering of the White House Press corps on March 21, 1930, President Herbert Hoover announced his nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill a vacancy unexpectedly created by the death of Edward T. Sanford. His nominee was forty-four year old native North Carolinian John J. Parker, a member since 1925 of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Within days of the nomination organized labor and its allies in Congress and the press unleashed withering attacks on a single judicial opinion authored by Parker. In the process, the priority of issues raised in that case was dramatically inverted. The foremost issue, federal jurisdiction, became subordinated to the scope of an injunctive decree, an issue of secondary importance. Thus, the nominee's three year old opinion in International Union, United Mine Workers of America v. Red Jacket Consolidated Coal and Coke Company became the catalyst for transforming him from relative obscurity into a symbol of anti-labor conservatism.

Type
Symposium on the History of the Legal Profession and the Judiciary
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 1987 , pp. 51 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. ‘The President's News Conference of March 21, 1930: Nomination of a Supreme Court Justice’, Public Papers of the Presidents: Herbert Hoover, 1930 (Washington, 1976) 98–99Google Scholar.

2. President Calvin Coolidge gave Parker a recess appointment Oct. 3, 1925, reported in U.S. Department of Justice Register at 18 (1927)Google Scholar; Parker was nominated Dec. 8, 1925, reported in 67 Congressional Record (69th Cong., 1st Sess.) 499; was confirmed Dec. 14, 1925, ibid. at 769.

3. The Sun [Baltimore], Mar. 26, 1930, at 2 (reporting rumors of American Federation of Labor opposition); see Confirmation of Hon. John J. Parker to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States: Hearing Before a Subcomm. of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 71st Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1930) [hereinafter cited as Parker Confirmation Hearing].

4. 18 F. 2d 839 (4th Cir.); certiorari denied sub nom. Lewis v. Red Jacket Consol. Coal & Coke Co., 275 U.S. 536 (1927).

5. ‘The Opposition to Judge Parker’ (editorial), The World, Apr. 17, 1930, at 12; Anderson, , ‘The Supreme Court Victory’, 130 Nation 599 (1930)Google Scholar.

6. John J. Parker to Lee S. Overman, Apr. 24, 1930, reprinted in 72 Congressional Record (71st Cong., 2d Sess.) 7793–794 (1930).

7. Watson, Richard L. Jr., ‘The Defeat of Judge Parker: A Study in Pressure Groups and Politics’, Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (1963) 213–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Kelly, Alfred H., Harbinson, Winfred A., & Belz, Herman, The American Constitution, Its Origins and Development (New York, 6th ed., 1983)Google Scholar.

9. Burner, David, Herbert Hoover: A Public Life (New York, 1979) 235Google Scholar.

10. Abraham, Henry J., Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (New York, 2d. ed. 1985) 42, 347Google Scholar n. 15; Blaustein, Albert P. and Mersky, Roy M., The First One Hundred Justices: Statistical Studies on the Supreme Court of the United States (Hamden, 1978) 82Google Scholar; Harris, Joseph P., The Advice and Consent of the Senate: A Study of the Confirmation of Appointments by the United States Senate (New York, 1953) 128–29Google Scholar; David Burner, Herbert Hoover, supra note 9.

11. Swindler, William F., Court and Constitution in the Twentieth Century: The Old Legality, 1889–1932, 2 vols. (Indianapolis and New York, 1969) i: 299Google Scholar; Joel B. Grossman and Steven L. Wasby, ‘The Senate and Supreme Court Nominations: Some Reflections’, 1972 Duke Law Journal 557, 569; (and at 570 n.44, asserting that ‘Parker ignored the Clayton Act… which was passed after Hitchman Coal and limited the holding of that case’, when the Clayton Act was enacted on Oct. 25, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, while the Supreme Court handed down Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229 on Dec. 10, 1917, and subsequently arguing that ‘the Supreme Court had severely limited the labor protection provided in that statute. See Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921)’, a point also made by Parker in Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843–44 (citing Duplex as the controlling precedent)). Grossman, Joel B. and Wasby, Stephen L., ‘Haynsworth and Parker: History Does Live Again’, 23 South Carolina Law Review 345, 356–57 (1971)Google Scholar (contending that Parker failed to cite Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184 (1921)Google Scholar, although that precedent was cited and quoted by him in Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843, 849).

12. Tribe, Laurence H., God Save This Honorable Court: How the Choice of Supreme Court Justices Shapes our History (New York, 1985) 34, 90–91, 135Google Scholar.

13. Ibid. at 34.

14. Lane, Winthrop D., Civil War in West Virginia (New York, 1921) 43Google Scholar; see also Baratz, Morton S., The Union and the Coal Industry (New Haven, 1955) 31Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Baratz, The Union]; Hennen, Ray V. and Reger, David B., West Virginia Geological Survey: Logan and Mingo Counties (Wheeling, 1914) 1–2Google Scholar, 25, 746 [hereinafter cited as Hennen and Reger, Geological Survey].

15. Eller, Ronald D., Miners, Millhands, and Moutaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South, 1880–1930 (Knoxville, 1982) 199Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Eller, Industrialization].

16. Delos Walker File on Mingo County at 4, in U.S. Coal Commission Records, Record Group 68, Div. of Investigation of Labor Facts, Labor Relations Section, Box 70 (available at Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md.) [hereinafter cited as Delos Walker File].

17. Williams, John Alexander, West Virginia and the Captains of Industry (Morgantown, 1976) 148–95Google Scholar.

18. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 134; Hennen and Reger, Geological Survey, supra note 14 at 13.

19. Delos Walker File on Mingo County, supra note 16 at 1, reporting that ‘foreigners abound mostly Hungarians and Spanish…’, although, in fact, Italians mistakenly identified as Spaniards constituted the largest of the immigrant ethnic groups, while those classified as Hungarians apparently included the numerous Poles and other Slavs as well as Magyars; see Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 174.

20. Northrup, Herbert R., ‘The Negro and the United Mine Workers of America’, Southern Economic Journal 9 (1943) 316, 321CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eller, Industrialization supra note 15 at 168–71.

21. Bailey, Kenneth R., ‘A Judicious Mixture: Negroes and Immigrants in the West Virginia Mines, 1880–1917’, West Virginia History 34 (1973) 141Google Scholar, 157.

22. Chafee, Zechariah, ‘Company Towns in the Soft-Coal Fields’, in The Inquiring Mind (New York, 1928) 172–182Google Scholar; 1 U.S. Coal Commission Report, S. Doc. No. 195, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. 169–72 (1925) [hereinafter cited as Coal Comm'n Rep.]; Corbin, David Alan, Life, Work and Rebellion in the Coal Fields: The Southern West Virginia Miners, 1880–1922 (Urbana, 1981) 10Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Corbin, Rebellion].

23. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 8.

24. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 192–93; Delos Walker File on Mingo County, supra note 16 at 4.

25. Zechariah Chafee, ‘Company Towns in the Soft-Coal Fields’, supra note 22 at 178–79; Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 193; Delos Walker File, ‘Interview with Don Chafin, Sheriff of Logan County, May 16, 1923’, supra note 16.

26. See UMWA District No. 17 v. Chafin, 286 F. 959, 960 (S.D.W.Va. 1923).

27. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 117.

28. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 194.

29. Seidman, Joel I., ‘The Yellow Dog Contract’, John Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science 50 (1932) 1; 3Google ScholarU.S. Coal Comm'n Rep. supra note 22 at 1389 (reprinting a copy of the typical ‘yellow-dog’ contract form which read:

CONTRACT

In order to preserve to each man the right to do such work as he pleases and for whom he pleases and the right to payment in proportion to services rendered, to preserve the natural and constitutional right of individual contract, to preserve to each individual the fruits of his own labor, and to promote the interests of both parties hereto, _____ company, _____ employer, and _____ employee, agree as follows:

That employer hereby employs employee to work at its coal mine, and employee accepts such employment, and that so long as the relation of employer and employee exists between them, the employer will not knowingly employ, or keep in its employment, any member of the United Mine Workers of America, the I.W.W., or any other mine labor organization, and the employee will not join or belong to any such union or organization, and will not aid, encourage, or approve the organization thereof, it being understood that the policy of said company is to operate a non-union mine, and that it would not enter into any contract of employment under any other conditions, and if and when said relation of employer and employee, at any time and under any circumstances, terminates, the employee agrees that he will not then or thereafter, in any manner molest, annoy, or interfere with the business, customers, or employees of the employer, and will not aid or encourage anyone else in so doing.

Witness the following signature this, the _____ day of 192_.

(Company)

________________

________________

By officer or agent

(Employee)

________________

Witness:

________________

The contract used by Red Jacket Consol. Coal and Coke Co. embodied the above language in the form of a non-union oath, 2 Conditions in the Coal Fields of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio, Hearings pursuant to S.Res. 105 Before the Senate Comm. on Interstate Commerce, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. 1846 (1928) [hereinafter cited as Conditions].

30. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 9.

31. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 194; see 2 Conditions, supra note 29 at 1847 (reprinting text of the housing lease form used by the Red Jacket Company during the 1920s).

32. Morton S. Baratz, The Union, supra note 14 at 33; Mansfield, Harvey C., The Lake Carto Rate Controversy (New York, 1932) 21–27Google Scholar.

33. Lambie, Joseph T., From Mine to Market: The History of Coal Transportation on the Norfolk and Western Railway (New York, 1954) 311–22Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Lambie, From Mine to Market].

34. Longin, Thomas C., ‘Coal, Congress and the Courts: The Bituminous Coal Industry and the New Deal’, West Virginia History 35 (1974) 102Google Scholar; 1 Coal Comm'n. Rep., supra note 22 at 168; Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 178, 188; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 30–36.

35. Brief for Appellants at 68, Red Jacket, Records of U.S. Sup. Ct., Record Group 267, File no. 32777, Box 10076, (available at National Archives, Washington D.C.) [hereinafter cited as U.S. Sup. Ct. Case File].

36. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 43.

37. Ibid. at 43–45.

38. Ibid. at 87; Rankin, Robert S., When Civil Law Fails: Martial Law and Its Legal Basis in the United States (Durham, 1939) 85–113Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Rankin, When Civil Law Fails].

39. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 209, 223.

40. Statement of Delos Walker, official stenographic minutes, Washington, D.C. (Apr. 5–6, 1923), at 121 in U.S. Coal Commission Records, Record Group 68, Div. of Investigation of Labor Facts, Labor Relations Sections, Box 71 (available at Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md.), [hereinafter cited as Statement of Walker].

41. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 209.

42. Winthrop D. Lane, Civil War in West Virginia, supra note 14 at 45.

43. Brief for Appellees at 234, Red Jacket.

44. Statement of Walker, supra note 40.

45. 2 U.S. Bureau of Mines, Mineral Resources of the United States (Washington, 1927) 607Google Scholar, 629 (1927) [hereinafter cited as Mineral Resources]; 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, Bicentennial, ed., 1975) (M 93–106Google Scholar); Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 184.

46. 3 Coal Comm'n. Rep., supra note 22 at 1387.

47. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 241–46.

48. Statement of Walker, supra note 40 at 120.

49. Corbin, Rebellion supra note 22 at 246.

50. Delos Walker File, ‘Interview with Fred Mooney, Mar. 26, 192–’, U.S. Coal Commission Records, Record Group 68, Repts. of Field Investigators, Box 69 (available at Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md.); Dubofsky, Melvin and Tine, Warren Van, John L. Lewis: A Biography (New York, 1977) 77Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Dubofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis]; 3 Transcript of Record: Affidavits at 788-a, Red Jacket.

51. 1 Transcript of Record: Pleadings at 26, Red Jacket.

52. Delos Walker File, ‘Interview with George Bausewaine’ (no date), supra note 16; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 202 (stating that by July 1, 1920, over 90 per cent of the Mingo miners had joined one of thirty-four locals of the UMWA).

53. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 222–23.

54. Thurmond, Walter R., The Logan Coal Field of West Virginia: A Brief History (Morgantown, 1964) 109–10Google Scholar.

55. 2 Conditions, supra note 29 at 1833, 1843, 1875 (testimony of Landon C. Bell); West Virginia Annotated Report of Department of Mines (1927) 87, [hereinafter cited as W.Va. Annot. Rep.]; Conley, Philip, History of the West Virginia Coal Industry (Charleston, 1960) 260Google Scholar.

56. 2 Conditions, supra note 22 at 1833 (testimony of Landon C. Bell); Hennen and Reger, Geological Survey, supra note 14 at 558–65 (locating Red Jacket holdings at: (1) Logan Mine on Mate Creek at Red Jacket; (2) Red Jacket Mine on Mate Creek .7 miles N.E. of Red Jacket; (3) Mitchell Mine on Mitchell Branch of Mate Creek 2.6 miles N.E. of Matewan; (4) Lick Fork Mine on Grapevine Creek 1.3 miles S.E. of Thacker; (5) Grapevine Mine on Tug Fork 1 mile N. 80 degrees East of Delorme).

57. W.Va. Annot. Rep., supra note 55 at 131.

58. Ibid.; 1 Transcript of Record at 5, Red Jacket.

59. 3 Transcript at 789-a, Red Jacket.

60. Ibid. at 1960-a.

61. Ibid. at 761-a to 762-a.

62. Lee, Howard B., Bloodletting in Appalachia: The Story of West Virginia's Four Major Minewars and Other Thrilling Incidents of its Coal Fields (Morgantown, 1969) 21Google Scholar, 189–90n [hereinafter cited as Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia].

63. Ibid. at 53; 1 Transcript of Record at 136, Red Jacket.

64. Ibid. at 224.

65. Ibid. at 27, 224; Rankin, When Civil Law Fails, supra note 38 at 129–36 (commenting on aspects of martial law existing in Mingo County during 1920–21).

66. 1 Transcript of Record at 224, Red Jacket.

67. Ibid.; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 201–206.

68. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 200.

69. Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia, supra note 62 at 73; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 205.

70. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 217.

71. The number of participants counted depended on when and where the estimate was made. Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 219, estimated that the total number of those who participated in the union campaign at any one location reached 15,000 to 20,000. However, the actual number of participants at any single moment was much less, perhaps as low as 5,000 to 7,000 as stated in Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 841.

72. Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia, supra note 62 at 94–96; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 218.

73. Wheeler, Hoyt N., ‘Mountaineer Mine Wars: An Analysis of the West Virginia Mine Wars of 1912–1913 and 1920–1921’, Business History Review 50 (1976) 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia, supra note 62 at 100.

74. Ibid. at 101; see also Brief for Appellees at 106–26, Red Jacket; Corbin, Rebellion, supra note 22 at 224, 235 n.141 (reporting that no accurate death toll exists and that estimates ranged from four to one hundred).

75. Delos Walker File, supra note 16 at 2.

76. Eller, Industrialization, supra note 15 at 238.

77. Mineral Resources, supra note 45 at 413; Dubofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis, supra note 50 at 76.

78. Mineral Resources, supra note 45 at 328, 403, 411; Dobofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis, supra note 50 at 135; Lambie, Mine to Market, supra note 33 at 209; on the performance of the Red Jacket Company, see Bell, Landon C., Southsider—A Lawyer's Life: Law, Lumber and Coal (Richmond, 1954)Google Scholar.

79. Baratz, The Union, supra note 14 at 59–62; Dubofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis, supra note 50 at 147; ‘Average Membership UMWA, 1890–1923’, U.S. Coal Commission Records, Record Group 68, Div. of Investigation of Labor Facts, Labor Relations Section, Box 70 (available at Washington National Records Center, Suitland, Md.) (reporting that total membership fell from a peak of 515,243 in 1921 to 376,285 in January, 1923 of whom a substantial proportion were unemployed non-dues paying ‘exonerated’ members).

80. Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachian, supra note 62 at 80.

81. See Brief for Appellants at 7–14, Red Jacket.

82. Nominated on July 19, 1921, reported in 61 Congressional Record (67th Cong., 1st Sess.) at 4051; confirmed on July 25, 1921, ibid. at 4262.

83. Letter from Edward W. Knight to Fred A. Howland (July 2, 1925), Dep't of Justice Records, Record Group 60, Appointment Files for Judges of Circuit Courts of Appeals, 1903–29, Circuit 4, Box 334 (available at National Archives, Washington, D.C.) [hereinafter cited as Appointment Files].

84. Telegram from James Riley and Fred Mooney to Harry M. Daugherty (Mar. 17, 1921), ibid.

85. Memorandum from Harry M. Daugherty to Warren G. Harding re: ‘Telegram and letter from Henry D. Hatfield—ex-Governor of West Virginia for Southern District of West Virginia’ (July 11, 1921), Warren G. Harding Papers, file 208D, microfilm roll 190 (available at Ohio Historical Society, Columbus, Ohio); see also Karr, Carolyn, ‘A Political Biography of Henry Hatfield’, West Virginia History 28 (1966) 35–63Google Scholar, (1967) 137–70.

86. Letter from J. Bernard Handlan to John G. Sargent (July 7, 1925), Appointment Files, supra note 83, Box 332; letter from John C. Rose to John Marshall (July 15, 1925), ibid.

87. Minutes, ‘The Annual Conference of the Senior Circuit Judges was called to order by the Chief Justice shortly after 10 o'clock on the morning of Tuesday, June 9, 1925’ at 26 (statement of Edmund Waddill, Jr.) (available at Admin. Off. U.S. Cts., Washington, D.C); see also United States ex rel. Lark v. McClintic, 19 F.2d 1023 (4th Cir. 1927) (denying petition for a writ of mandamus against Judge McClintic on Jan. 12, 1927, and a supplemental petition on Apr. 14, 1927). President Harding promoted Judge Waddill from the United States Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to the Court of Appeals by nomination on May 26, 1921, 61 Congressional Record (67th Cong., 1st Sess.) 1794; confirmed on June 2, 1921, ibid. at 2032.

88. Letter from Jerome Davis to William E. Borah (Apr. 15, 1930), William E. Borah Papers, Box 300 (available at Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.) (Davis had been an investigator for the U.S. Coal Comm'n, see Zechariah Chafee, ‘Company Towns in the Soft-Coal Fields’, supra note 22 at 173 n.l).

89. 1 Transcript of Record at 319–21, Red Jacket.

90. Dubofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis, supra note 50 at 79 (reporting that aside from spending millions on strike relief measures, the UMWA in 1920 spent over $150,000 for litigation purposes, the next year nearly $460,000, and less than $100,000 only once during the decade).

91. 7 Clerk's Official Term Dockets (Apr. term 1926) 56–64 (available at Clerk's Office, 4th Circuit, Richmond Va.) [hereinafter cited as Clerk's Dockets]. The Clerk assigned consecutive docket nos. 2492 through 2503 to the twelve separate Red Jacket cases.

92. ‘Presentation of Portrait and Memorial Proceedings: Edmund Waddill, Junior’, 56 F.2d 15 (1932); Virginia Journal of the House of Delegates (1885–1886 Sess.) 18; ibid. at 69, 388, 476 (1887-,1888 Sess.); ibid. at 39, 100–101; Leon Fink, ‘Irrespective of Party, Color or Social Standing: The Knights of Labor and Opposition Politics in Richmond, Virginia’, in Magol, Edward and Wakelyn, Jon L., eds., The Southern Common People: Studies in Nineteenth Century Social History (Westport, 1980) 304Google Scholar.

93. Letter from John J. Parker to Marion Butler (Jan. 24, 1920), Marion Butler Papers, Box 36 (available at Southern Historical Manuscripts Collection, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.); Charlotte Observer, Apr. 18, 1920, at 8; Greensboro Daily News, June 27, 1920, at 2.

94. Charlotte Observer, Oct. 30, 1919, at 5; ibid. Oct. 23, 1919 at 4; ibid. Nov. 18, 1919, at 9; ibid. Nov. 22, 1919, at 4; ibid. Nov. 23, 1919, at 3.

95. Letter from John C. Rose to Theodore Roosevelt (Oct. 19, 1906), Theodore Roosevelt Papers, microfilm roll 69 (available at Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.).

96. Dickson Construction & Repair Co. v. Int'l Assoc. of Machinists, (D. Md.) (equity No. 281) and Western Maryland Ry. Co. v. Int'l Assoc. of Machinists, (D. Md.) (equity No. 282), Records of U.S. Dist. Cts, Record Group 21 (D. Md.) Box 97-c, Equity File No. 4–24-002–3–3 (available at Federal Records Center, Philadelphia, Pa.).

97. Letter from John J. Parker to John C. Rose (Feb. 13, 1926), John J. Parker Papers, Box 16 (available at Southern Historical Manuscripts Collection, Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C.) [hereinafter cited as Parker Papers]; Parker to Henry H. Watkins (Feb. 6, 1926), ibid.

98. Letter from Edmund Waddill, Jr. to John J. Parker (Mar. 30, 1926), Parker Papers, supra note 97.

99. ‘Order Continuing Case to October Term, 1926’, nos. 2492–503 (filed Apr. 13, 1926), Red Jacket, Records of U.S. Cts. App., Record Group 276 (4th Cir.) 54-A-0177, Box 49, File No. 7–10-025–5-1 (available at Federal Records Center, Philadelphia, Pa.) [hereinafter cited as Red Jacket Case File].

100. 7 Clerk's Dockets (Oct. term 1926), supra note 91 at 20–29.

101. New York Times, Mar. 15, 1930, at 19.

102. Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia, supra note 62 at 105.

103. On Spilman, see G. W. Atkinson, ed., Bench and Bar of West Virginia (1919) 366–67; Martindale's American Law Directory (1928) 1011 (rating Spilman ‘a v 1 g'); J.C. Fifield, ed., American Bar: A Biographical Directory of Contemporary Lawyers of the United States and Canada—1928 at 1103; on Belcher, see Lee, Bloodletting in Appalachia, supra note 62 at 104; George S. Couch, see Martindale's American Law Directory (1928) 1009, others were Samuel M. Austin of Lewisburg, West Virginia, and Edgar Lee Greever, see American Bar—1928 at 1075.

104. Letter from John C. Rose to William Howard Taft (Jan. 20, 1927), William Howard Taft Papers, microfilm roll 288 (available at Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.) [hereinafter cited as Taft Papers].

105. Letter from Mary D. Stack to John J. Parker (Feb. 12, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17.

106. Henry Clay McDowell (W.D.Va.) fell ill and Senior Circuit Judge Waddill substituted for him, see letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Feb. 17, 1927), ibid.; Waddill to Parker (Feb. 18, 1927), ibid.; Parker to Waddill (Feb. 17, 1927), ibid. (reporting the illness of Henry Hitt Watkins (W.D.S.C.)).

107. Letter from Edmund Waddill Jr. to John J. Parker (Mar. 19, 1927), ibid.

108. Act of Mar. 3, 1927, ch. 276, 44 Stat. 1339; letter from Edmund Waddill, Jr. to John J. Parker (Mar. 8, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 3; ‘Statement of Judge Presiding in the District of the United States for the Middle District of North Carolina’ (Mar. 8, 1927), ibid.

109. Letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Feb. 24, 1927), ibid., Box 17 (the patent case was probably Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals Separation North American Corp., 18 F.2d 483 (4th Cir. 1927)).

110. Memorandum on cases nos. 2492–503 (Red Jacket), by John J. Parker, Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 48 [hereinafter cited as Memorandum]; letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Mar. 8, 1927), ibid., Box 17.

111. Letter from Parker to Waddill, ibid.

112. Rose, John C., Jurisdiction and Procedure of the Federal Courts (Albany, 3d. ed., 1926)Google Scholar.

113. Letter from Parker to Waddill, supra note 110.

114. Letter from John C. Rose to John J. Parker (Mar. 8, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17.

115. Letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Mar. 10, 1927), ibid., Box 3.

116. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114, (The U.S. Sup. Ct. precedent was Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229 (1917)).

117. Letter from Edmund Waddill, Jr. to John C. Rose (Mar. 19, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17.

118. Letter from Edmund Waddill, Jr. to John J. Parker (Mar. 12, 1927), ibid.

119. Letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Mar. 14, 1927), ibid.

120. Letter from Edmund Waddill, Jr. to John J. Parker (Mar. 16, 1927), ibid., Box 17.

121. Letter from John J. Parker to John C. Rose (Mar. 24, 1927), ibid., Box 17.

122. Letter from Mary D. Stack to John J. Parker (Mar. 23, 1927), ibid., Box 17.

123. Letter from John J. Parker to John C. Rose (Mar. 25, 1927), ibid.; letter from John J. Parker to Mary D. Stack (Apr. 1, 1927), ibid; death of Rose on Mar. 26, 1927 reported in 18 F.22d iv n.9 (1927).

124. Letter from William. A. Glasgow, Jr., to Claude M. Dean (Apr. 4, 1927), Red Jacket Case File, supra note 99.

125. Letter from John J. Parker to William E. Baker (Apr. 1, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17.

126. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 850.

127. Letter from John J. Parker to Edmund Waddill, Jr. (Apr. 7, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17.

128. Letter from John J. Parker to Elliott Northcott (May 27, 1927), ibid., Box 17, case no. 2610, Globe Indemnity Co. v. Keeble, 20 F.2d 84 (4th Cir. 1927).

129. Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England: Book the First, reprint by Dawsons of Pall Mall (London, 1966) (1765) §3 at 69.Google Scholar

130. Letter from John J. Parker to John C. Rose (Feb. 12, 1927), supra note 97, Box 17, re case no. 2553, United States v. Newport Shipbuilding Corp., 18 F.2d 556 (4th Cir. 1927); see also letter from John J. Parker to Elliott Northcott (Mar. 17, 1928), ibid., Box 18, re case no. 2666, Holt v. Albert Pick & Co., 25 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1928).

131. Letter from John J. Parker to John C. Rose (Oct. 1, 1926), ibid., Box 16, re. case no. 2453, Feaster v. Southern Ry. Co., 15 F 2d 540 (4th Cir. 1926).

132. Letter from Parker to Waddill, (Apr. 7, 1927), supra note 127.

133. See Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 849–50.

134. See ibid. at 850; letter from Parker to Waddill, supra note 127.

135. See Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 846–48.

136. Brief for Appellants at 205–206, Red Jacket.

137. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 850.

138. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

139. 4 Transcript of Record: Final Decrees, Findings of Facts and Assignments of Error at 10–11 and 14–15, Red Jacket.

140. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 9.

141. Ibid.

142. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 842.

143. ibid. at 850.

144. ibid. at 846.

145. Ibid.

146. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 5.

147. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 847.

148. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

149. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 5.

150. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843 (although noting Red Jacket, a Virginia corporation, offered diversity as well as ‘federal question’ jurisdiction); see Reply Brief of Appellants at 16, Red Jacket; Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 839.

151. Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209.

152. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274, 292–93 (1908). Commentators have disputed congressional intent respecting application of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to organized labor; see Mason, Alpheus T., Organized Labor and the Law, with Especial Reference to the Sherman and Clayton Acts (Durham, 1925) 119–42Google Scholar and Berman, Edward, Labor and the Sherman Act (New York, 1930) 11–54Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Berman, Labor and the Sherman Act].

153. Frankfurter, Felix and Greene, Nathan, The Labor Injunction (New York, 1930) 10Google Scholar n.4.

154. Brief for Appellants at 66–235 (arguments on all issues) at 66–185 (arguments solely on jurisdiction), Red Jacket.

155. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 1.

156. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843.

157. Ibid.; see 4 Transcript of Record at 10, Red Jacket (recording that Judge McClintic had found in ‘Findings of Facts,’ para. 8 that officers of the UMWA

have unlawfully combined and conspired amongst themselves absolutely to monopolize and control all labor in the United States and on the American continent engaged in the work of mining and producing coal, and by that means to control and unreasonably restrict the production, shipment, and sale of coal in interstate commerce…).

158. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 8.

159. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843; see Clayton Act of Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, § 6, 38 Stat. 731 (providing

that the labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the anti-trust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor… organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help… nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the anti-trust laws).

But see Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 469 (1921); see Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209 (1921); UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 385 (1922).

160. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 844.

161. 4 Transcript of Record at 11–12, Red Jacket.

162. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 844.

163. Ibid.; Memorandum, supra note 110 at 8 (suggesting that the 1922 coal strike further supported his conclusion because the UMWA had then struck not ‘pursuant to a conspiracy with the Union operators’, but rather against ‘a large part of the fields [of] these very union operators’.

164. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 845; see 4 Transcript of Record at 10, Red Jacket (recording that in ‘Findings of Fact’, para. 9, Judge McClintic found that the Union had been and continued to be engaged in an unlawful combination and conspiracy in unlawful restraint of trade and commerce in bituminous coal among the several states of the United States… in violation of Anti-trust laws… to exclude and drive out of interstate trade and commerce, and to restrain unreasonably and prevent all interstate trade and commerce in, any and all coal produced and shipped by non-union… or unorganized mines).

165. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 8; Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 845.

166. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 5.

167. United States v. E.C. Knight Co., 156 U.S. 1, 12 (1895).

168. Brief for Appellants at 83–91, and Reply Brief for Appellants at 16–18, Red Jacket.

169. UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344 (1922); United Leather Workers Int'l Union v. Herkert and Meisel Trunk Co., 265 U.S. 457 (1924).

170. Letter from William Howard Taft to Horace Dutton Taft (June 16, 1922), Taft Papers, supra note 104, microfilm roll 243.

171. Ibid.; see Bickel, Alexander M., The Unpublished Opinions of Mr. Justice Brandeis (Cambridge, 1957) 97, 202Google Scholar.

172. Mason, Alpheus Thomas, William Howard Taft, Chief Justice (New York, 1965) 202–03Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Mason, William Howard Taft: Chief Justice]. Taft also held that unions were suable, UMWA v. Coronado Coal. Co., 259 U.S. 344, 383–92 (1922), a holding which drew sharp criticism from organized labor; see Kutler, Stanley I., ‘Chief Justice Taft, Judicial Unanimity and Labor: The Coronado Case’, The Historian 24 (1961) 68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 72, 76–78.

173. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

174. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 39 (1922).

175. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251, 272 (1918) (cited in UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 408 (1922) (emphasis added)).

176. UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 407–408 (1922).

177. United Leather Workers Int'l Union v. Herkert & Meisel Trunk Co., 265 U.S. 457 (1924).

178. ibid. at 471.

179. UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 408–409, 411 (1922).

180. United Leather Workers Int'l Union v. Herkert Meisel Trunk Co., 265 U.S. 457, 471 (1924).

181. Ibid.

182. Coronado Coal Co. v. UMWA, 268 U.S. 295, 309 (1925).

183. ibid. at 310.

184. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 5.

185. Ibid.

186. Ibid.

187. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 845; see Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

188. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 845.

189. Ibid.

190. 272 U.S. 549 (1926) (decided Nov. 23, 1926).

191. ibid. at 552.

192. Letter from William A. Glasgow, Jr. to Claude M. Dean (Dec. 27, 1926), Red Jacket Case File, supra note 99.

193. Letter from John J. Parker to Claude M. Dean (Dec. 29, 1926), ibid.

194. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 6.

195. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 846.

196. Ibid.

197. Ibid.

198. Ibid., Parker's amendment read ‘see also, Bedford Cut Stone Co., et al. v. Journeymen Stone Cutters’ Association of North America et al., 47 S. Ct. 522, 71 L. Ed.…, decided by the Supreme Court April 11, 1927’.

199. See Mason, Alpheus Thomas, Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law (New York, 1956) 254–60Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone].

200. Bedford Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters, 274 U.S. 37, 46 (1927).

201. See Lieberman, Elias, Unions Before the Bar: Historic Trials Showing the Evolution of Labor Rights in the United States (New York, 1950) 168Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Lieberman, Unions Before the Bar].

202. Brief for Appellants at 185–204, Red Jacket.

203. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 842.

204. Ibid.

205. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 3.

206. ibid. at 6.

207. 221 U.S. 418, 438–39 (1911) (asserting ‘that the restraint of trade under the Sherman anti-trust act, or on general principles of law, could be enjoined, but that the means through which restraint was accomplished could not be enjoined would be to render the law impotent’).

208. See Berman, Labor and the Sherman Act, supra note 152 at 90.

209. ibid. at 209–10.

210. 288 F. 1020 (4th Cir. 1923).

211. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 1.

212. ibid. at 6.

213. See Lieberman, Unions Before the Bar, supra note 201 at 84–86 (reporting that since 1853 English courts had held actionable at law third party interferences with an employment contract which resulted in breach of its terms, Lumley v. Gye, 2 El. & Bl. 216 (Q.B. (1853)); Seidman, The Yellow Dog Contract, supra note 29 at 26 (noting that American courts had embraced this tortious action doctrine); see also, Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 202 F. 512 (N. D. W. Va. 1912).

214. Mitchell v. Hitchman Coal and Coke Co., 214 F. 685 (4th Cir. 1914).

215. ibid. at 698.

216. ibid. at 704.

217. Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229 (1917).

218. 208 U.S. 161, 174 (1908).

219. 236 U.S. 1, 14 (1915).

220. Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 250 (1917).

221. ibid. at 253.

222. Ibid.

223. ibid. at 255.

224. 239 U.S. 33, 38 (1915) (quoted in Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 251–52 (1917)).

225. Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 257 (1917).

226. ibid. at 259.

227. Ibid.

228. ibid. at 248.

229. ibid. at 247, 257.

230. ibid. at 259.

231. ibid. at 262.

232. ibid. at 261–62; see also Carey, Homer F. and Oliphant, Herman, ‘The Present Status of the Hitchman Case’, 29 Columbia Law Review 441, 445 (1929)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter cited as Carey and Oliphant, ‘The Present Status of the Hitchman Case'].

233. 254 U.S. 443 (1921).

234. Clayton Act of Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §6, 38 Stat. 731.

235. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 469 (1921).

236. Clayton Act of Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §20, 38 stat. 738.

237. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 471 (1921) (wherein Pitney, J. roundly denounced such interference by the 60,000 members of the National Association of Machinists who, ‘although standing in no relation of employment under complainant, past, present, or prospective… make that dispute their own and proceed to instigate sympathetic strikes, picketing, and boycotting against employers wholly unconnected with complainant's factory…’).

238. ibid. at 479.

239. 257 U.S. 184 (1921).

240. ibid. at 208.

241. ibid. at 209.

242. Ibid.

243. ibid. at 209–10.

244. ibid. at 209–10, 212–13.

245. ibid. at 208.

246. ibid. at 208.

247. ibid. at 210.

248. ibid. at 211. See Brief for Appellants at 190, Red Jacket.

249. Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 211–12 (1921).

250. UMWA v. Coronado Coal Co., 259 U.S. 344, 409 (1922).

251. Letter from William Howard Taft to Mahlon Pitney (Dec. 31, 1921), Taft Papers, supra note 104, microfilm roll 233.

252. 257 U.S. 312 (1921).

253. ibid. at 340.

254. ibid. at 365, 371.

255. 288 F. 1020 (4th Cir. 1923).

256. 15 F.2d 652, 658 (4th Cir. 1926); see 7 Clerk's Dockets (Oct. term, 1926) supra note 91 at 6 (noting that case no. 2409 was filed July 16, 1925, argued Oct. 22, 1925, opinion filed Oct. 29, 1926, decree filed Nov. 1, 1926, mandate issued Dec. 2, 1926).

257. Letter from William A. Glasgow, Jr. to Claude M. Dean (Nov. 9, 1926), Red Jacket Case File, supra note 99.

258. Bittner v. W. Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co., 15 F.2d 652, 657–58 (4th Cir. 1926).

259. See paragraph 27 of bill of complaint, ibid. at 653 (noting element of deceit); see ibid. at 659.

260. ibid. at 654.

261. ibid. at 659.

262. Brief for Appellant at 18–19, 45, 49–52, Bittner v. W. Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co., 15 F.2d 652 (4th Cir. 1926).

263. ibid. at 58; see Acts 9: 3–9, 22: 3–11, 26: 12–18.

264. Bittner v. W.Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co., 15 F.2d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 1926).

265. Ibid.

266. Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Co., 278 F. 56 (7th Cir. 1921).

267. ibid. at 64 (emphasis added).

268. Bittner v. W. Va.-Pittsburgh Coal Co., 15 F.2d 652, 659 (4th Cir. 1926).

269. Brief for Appellant at 189–90, Bittner.

270. ibid. at 189.

271. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 6.

272. Ibid.

273. Ibid.

274. Ibid.

275. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 478 (1921) (restraining even persuasion intended to cause ‘any person or persons to decline employment, cease employment… or to refrain from work or cease working under any… purchaser or prospective purchaser of any printing press or presses from complainant’).

276. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 6.

277. Ibid.

278. ibid. at 6–7.

279. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

280. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 6.

281. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

282. Letter from Waddill to Parker, supra note 118.

283. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843–44 (quoting Taft, C.J., in Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209 (1921)).

284. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 471 (1921); see also Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 202 (1921).

285. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 849.

286. Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 195 (1921).

287. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 840.

288. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 843–44 (citing Taft, C.J., in Am. Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Cent. Trades Council, 257 U.S. 184, 209 (1921)).

289. ibid. at 844.

290. ibid. at 843–44.

291. ibid. at 844.

292. Memorandum, supra note 110 at 6.

293. Ibid.

294. Letter from Rose to Parker, supra note 114.

295. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 849.

296. Ibid.

297. Ibid.

298. ibid. at 850.

299. Gasaway v. Borderland Coal Co., 278 F. 56, 64 (7th Cir. 1921).

300. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 849.

301. Ibid.

302. 288 F. 1020 (4th Cir. 1923) (signed by Waddill, Rose, and Parker's immediate predecessor, Charles A. Woods, approving a broad Hitchman-like decree which, among other restraints, barred the Union from seeking to

interfere with the right of such employees [under ‘yellow-dog’ contracts] and those seeking employment to work upon such terms as to them seem proper… or from counseling or advising that these plaintiffs should in any way or manner be injured in the conduct of the business and in the enjoyment of their property).

303. Hitchman Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 261–62 (1917).

304. Letter from William E. Baker to John J. Parker (Apr. 21, 1927), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 17; Parker to Baker (Apr. 25, 1927), ibid.

305. Letter from W. M. Wiley to Hamilton McKay (Apr. 28, 1928), ibid., Box 3.

306. Dockets of the Sup. Ct. U.S., Records of the U.S. Supreme Court, Record Group 267, microfilm roll 19 (available at National Archives, Washington, D.C.) (noting action in appeals cases nos. 325–36, Lewis v. Red Jacket: filed on June 28, 1927, submitted on Oct. 3, 1927, certiorari denied on Oct. 17, 1927).

307. Petition for Certiorari (nos. 325–26) and Brief for Appellants, at 67–84 (jurisdiction), 84–101 (injunction), Red Jacket, U.S. Sup. Ct. Case File, supra note 35.

308. ibid. at 73, 75–77, 78.

309. ibid. at 82.

310. ibid. at 93.

311. ibid. at 57.

312. ibid. at 96 (emphasis in original).

313. ibid. at 96–97.

314. Ibid.

315. ibid. at 98.

316. ibid. (emphasis in original).

317. ibid. at 58.

318. Certiorari denied sub nom. Lewis v. Red Jacket Consol. Coal and Coke Co., 275 U.S. 536 (1927).

319. Frankfurter, Felix and Landis, James M., ‘The Supreme Court Under the Judiciary Act of 1925’, 42 Harvard Law Review 1, 13 (1928)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

320. Letter from William A. Glasgow, Jr. to Charles Elmore Cropley, (Oct. 19, 1927), U.S. Sup. Ct. Case File, supra note 35.

321. Mason, Harlan Fiske Stone, supra note 199 at 875.

322. Milton Handler, Book Review, 28 Columbia Law Review 515, 516 (1928)Google Scholar (reviewing Frankfurter, Felix and Landis, James M., The Business of the Supreme Court (New York, 1928))Google Scholar.

323. Ibid.

324. ibid. at 516 n.l.

325. Moore, Frank D., ‘Right of Review by Certiorari To the Supreme Court’, 17 Georgetown Law Review 307, 309 (1929)Google Scholar.

326. Milton Handler, Book Review, supra note 322 at 517.

327. Letter from William Howard Taft to Charles P. Taft II (Oct. 16, 1927), Taft Papers, supra note 100, microfilm roll 295; see Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, ‘The Supreme Court Under the Judiciary Act of 1925’, supra note 104 at 287–89.

328. Mason, William Howard Taft, supra note 172 at 228–29; Bedford Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters, 274 U.S. 37, 55 (1927) (Sanford, J. concurring); ibid. (Stone, J. concurring); ibid. at 56 (Brandeis, J., joined by Holmes, J., dissenting).

329. Bedford Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters, 274 U.S. 37, 49–51 (1927).

330. See Liles v. Oregon, 425 U.S. 963 (1976) (Stevens, J., concurring in denial of certiorari).

331. Carey and Oliphant, ‘The Present Status of the Hitchman Case’, supra note 232 at 450.

332. Letter from William Howard Taft to Helen Herron Taft (Oct. 9, 1927), Taft Papers, supra note 104, microfilm roll 295 (reporting hospitalization of Sutherland, J. for stomach and nervous disorders); letter from William Howard Taft to Robert A. Taft (Jan. 1, 1928), ibid. (reporting Sutherland, J.'s expected return to the Court early in 1928); Pearson, Drew and Allen, Robert S., More-Merry-Go-Round (New York, 1932) 84Google Scholar (reporting Sutherland's ‘pronounced hypochondriacal tendencies’) [hereinafter cited as Pearson and Allen, More-Merry-Go-Round].

333. Mason, William Howard Taft, Chief Justice, supra note 172 at 198–212; Halpern, Stephen C. and Vines, Kenneth W., ‘Institutional Disunity, The Judges’ Bill and the Role of the U.S. Supreme Court’, Western Political Quarterly 30 (1977) 471–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

334. Red Jacket, 18 F.2d at 845–46.

335. Pearson and Allen, More-Merry-Go-Round, supra note 332 at 80.

336. Letter from Willis D. VanDevanter to John C. Pollock (Mar. 31, 1930), Willis D. VanDevanter Papers, Letter Book 42, Box 14, (available at Manuscripts Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.).

337. Danelski, David J., ‘The Influence of the Chief Justice in the Decisional Process of the Supreme Court’, reprinted in Goldman, Sheldon and Sarat, Austin, eds., American Court Systems: Readings in Judicial Process and Behavior (San Francisco, 1978) 510Google Scholar.

338. Letter from John J. Parker to Henry Horace Williams (Feb. 6, 1930), Parker Papers, supra note 97, Box 3, re. United States v. Munson S.S. Line, 37 F.2d 681 (4th Cir. 1930), certiorari granted, 281 U.S. 715 (1930), aff'd, 283 U.S. 43 (1930).

339. Letter from John J. Parker to Charles T. McCormick (Dec. 14, 1928), ibid., Box 18, re: Gilliam v. United States, 27 F.2d 296 (4th Cir. 1928); certiorari denied, 278 U.S. 635 (1928).

340. Untitled memorandum by John J. Parker, (no date, circa Mar., May 1930), ibid., Box 6; see also letter from John J. Parker to Henry Horace Williams (Apr. 7, 1930), ibid., Box 15; to Charles Kerr (Apr. 2, 1930), ibid., Box 6.

341. See supra note 306.

342. Letter from Charles Elmore Cropley to William A. Glasgow, Jr. (Feb. 29, 1928), U.S. Sup. Ct. Case File, supra note 35.

343. Lunt, Richard D., Law and Order vs. The Miners, West Virginia, 1907–1933 (Hamden, 1979) 164Google Scholar.

344. Parker Confirmation Hearing, supra note 3 at 63.

345. 72 Congressional Record (71st Cong., 2d Sess.) 7936 (1930).

346. Letter from William E. Borah to William H. Coolidge (Apr. 18, 1930), William E. Borah Papers, supra note 88.

347. 72 Congressional Record (71st Cong., 2d Sess.) 7934 (1930).

348. ibid. at 8345 (statement of Henry F. Ashurst (D. Ariz.)).

349. ibid. at 8353 (statement of William E. Borah (R. Idaho)).

350. Ibid. 8487 (recording roll call vote on Parker's confirmation. The official tally was 41 ‘nays’ and 39 ‘yeas’. With recorded pairs, the vote was 49 ‘nays’ and 47 ‘yeas’ in a Senate then consisting of 96 members).

351. 281 U.S. 548 (1930).

352. Act of Mar. 23, 1932, ch. 90, 47 Stat. 70 (held constitutional in Lauf v. E.G. Shinner and Co., 303 U.S. 323(1938).

353. Ibid.

354. ibid. at § 4 (i) (a section relating directly to Red Jacket in that it removed jurisdiction of federal courts to restrain ‘advising, urging, or otherwise causing or inducing without fraud or violence the acts heretofore specified, regardless of any such undertaking or promise as is described in Section 3 of this Act’).

355. National Labor Relations Act of July 5, 1935, ch. 372, § 1, 49 Stat. 449 (declaring it ‘to be the policy of the United States to eliminate the causes of certain substantial obstructions to the free flow of commerce and to mitigate and eliminate these obstructions…’.) (held constitutional in NLRB v. Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp. 301 U.S. 1 (1937)); but see Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of August 30, 1935, ch. 824, §1, 49 Stat. 991 (basing exercise of congressional power on broad construction of the commerce clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, c1.3), and at 1001 (guaranteeing the right of collective bargaining as well as other collateral rights enforceable by a Bituminous Coal Labor Board) (held unconstitutional in Carter v. Carter Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238 (1936)).

356. Bituminous Coal Act of Apr. 26, 1937, ch. 127, 50 Stat. 72 (held constitutional in Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381 (1940)).

357. Swisher, Carl Brent, American Constitutional Development (Cambridge, 2d. ed., 1954) 916–17Google Scholar; Bernstein, Irving, The Lean Years: A History of the American Worker, 1920–1933 (Boston, 1960) 127Google Scholar; Dubofsky and Van Tine, John L. Lewis supra note 50 at 155–57, 170–78, 371–86; see Fig. 3, supra.