The daily morning journal and courier., 1903-09-14


 try Made Defendants-Amsrtca Fed-
 sration of Labor InteTestsd-NewIy
 Organized American Anti-BoyCott
 Association, the Piaintiffs-Two Suits
 Brought.
 The attempts to curb the activity of organized labor in Connecticut are ap- parent in many places since the con- spiracy trial relative to the Teamsters' and Hackmen's strike in New Haven and the most recent and serious of these legal actions is that brought against the Matters locals in Danbury and against the national officers of the American Federation of Labor, with which the matters are affiliated. There are two suits, one against the Matters locals brought through the superior courts of Fairfield county; and the other against the officials of the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, brought be- fore the United States district court of Connecticut district. s.....
 The suits are brought under the Sher- man antitrust law by an interpretation of the applicability of the boycott pro- visions of the law. Action is brought by the recently organized American Anti-Boycott association, affiliated with the National Manufacturers associa- ton. This action is thought to be the outcome of suggestions made by Ed ward Kirby of Dayton, O., at the re- cent convention of the Manufacturers association in New Orleans Mr. Kirby, who is a manufacturer of Dayton and has identified himself with opposition to organized labor, advised widespread civil and criminal action against locals, internationals and the American Fed eration of Labor.
 The suit against the Matters local of Danbrry is to recover $100000 damages for an alleged boycott against the firm of D. F. Loewe & Co, hat manufac- turers of Danbury. The suit against the American Federation of Labor seeks s240,Oo0 damages, because of al leged discrimination against the hats of the I.oewe firm, induced by the power of the American Federation of Labor used among all the organizations affiliated with it.
 Attorney Daniel Davenport of Bridge port. counsel for the Anti Boycott asso- ciation, says that he believes the Sher- man law was first violated on July 2S, 1902, when the Matters local called out 1ae union men at work in the Loewe Ashcp. Since that time, Attorney Daven- poi in his complaint alleges that the Hatters organization has refused to allow the LoeWe shop to use the union label He further alleges that since that time the Matters locals and the American Federation of Labor have combined to discriminate against the output of the firm and have conspired 5 to keep union men generally from pur- chasing the hats.
 Members of unions in the state assert in reply to the plaintiffs allegation that union has the right to withhold the use of it's label on the goods made by a firm that does not employ union men in the branch of trade that pro- duees the goods. "The label is the copy 2righted possession of the Hatters' union, said an official of the organiza- ton yesterday, and since Loewe's shop would not employ union men on ac- count of the union wages and hours, the shop had no more right to use that label than it would to use the copy righted stamp of some other firm" 5
 Union men also claim that there can be no weight in a charge of boycott since 1t is the custom of union men not to buy goods that do not bear the union label, providing that workmen in the line of trade producing the goods have been organized Since the matters have been organized for many years there is plenty of opportunity to purchase hats bearing the label. Therefore the claim of the respondents will undoubtedly be that there was no discrimination against the LoeWe output @#
 The assumption is said New Haven attorney who has followed labor methods, that a firm that does not en- ploy union men and therefore does not carry inc label does not cater to the patronage of union men. Therefore the fact that LoeWe & Co. in putting out a line of medium priced hats find a fall- ing off in their sales Is only an indica- ton of the fact that their hats were not of the high priced grade that would appeal to the class of trade that does not look for the label and their absence of the label precluded much of the trade they might formerly have held among union men who might buy that grade of hat.
 The question that will be settled in the courts resolves itself into two. one whether a national labor organization owns it's label; the other, whether that organization and the American Feder- ation of Labor can be held liable be- cause the sale of the 1lon-union goods falls off apprecia bly,"
 The officials of the Danbury local of the Hatters are cited as defendants and the property of the 250 members of the organization is attached for $100,000. The officers who are named in the com- plaillt are: George J. Morehouse, George H. Gilbert, William P. Bailey, Howard S. Gilbert, Charles Green, Charles Lathrop, John McDole, Charles J. Barrett, Simon Blake, Hugh c. Shall veri, Michael c. Griffin, Patrick H. Con- nelly, Albert B. Hoyt, Charles Moore, James Whitney, William Brennan, Homer Rockwell, John R. Paul, Charles Flynn, John w. Sculley, Stephen Car lin, William c. Hennelly, Daniel P.