The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-09-13
LABOR MEN SUED FOR BOYCOTT
HATMAKERS DEMAND SSfO'"o'
DAMAGES ~ PWD SUITS.
Gompers and Other Officials OF the Fedora
ton or Labor Included Among the DE-
PENDANTS Connecticut Men Named In
STATE Sult-Danbury Firm Complains.


STATE Suit-Danbury Firm Complains
BRtpoEPoRr, Conn, Sept, The firs
applioat ion in this State Of the Sherman
Antitrust law to Loycotting and aliegeC
conspiracy by labor unions is involved
In Two suits instituted here to-day ard sup
ported by The American Anii-boycot'
Associat ion against the national ofncers oil
the American Federation OF Labor, tm
Office rs of the Hatters unions in DanburI
AID 80 OF their individual members.
One suit is brought through the United
States Dist riot Court for the Connecticut
dist rct, claiming damages of $4,000
under that provision ~ the sherman Anti
trust law providing that injured persons
NV recover threefod the amount of los
actually sustained An injunction is asked
restraining the defendants from continu-
ing the aleged boycott against D. T. Loewr
Il Co., hat manufacturers Of Danbury, III
whose name both suits are brought, Loew'
h Co. are affiliated with the American Anti
Boycott Association,
The second suit is brought in the Superior
Court of Fairfield county and is directed
against those OF the defendants who reside
in Come ct icut. ard asks for damages OF
slOO 600 and an Injunction preventing them
from a cont mutation Of the alleged boycott
The Hrst suit was brought in the Unltsd
states District Court because the Connecti-
cut courts could not reach those residing
outside this Stute. Property OF the $50
Connect icut men involved has been a'taci' u
to satisfy the claim of 100000.
The complaint alleges that in April. 1901.
the labor men nrade demand on the plain
tiffs to unionize their hat factory. The
plaintiffs declined 10 do it. Nothing much
was done in the matter because at the time
the defendants were busy trying to unionizr
the shops of +. Berg 4 Co of Orange, n. j.
and H. H Eoelefs d Co. of Philadelphia
After thew had met with success in these
factories the defendants are alleged to
have turned their attention to Loewe Co.
and on July Is, 1902, it is charged that they
violated the Sherman law by causing the
union men TO leave the factory, by in
shutting a boycott against the hats OF the
firm, by maintaining a monopoly OF the
Use OF the hatters' label. discriminating
against the hats made by the non-union
company, and by the employment of agents
who visited the wholesalers and threatened
them with less of business unless they
refused to handle the Loewe hats. thereby
crippling the production of the factory
and causing loss to the owners,
The plaintiffs assert that the conspiracy
and boycott have extended over the country
through the journals of the hating trade
and the American Federation of Labor
in copies of resolutions, unfair lists. notices
posted by various labor organizations and
in circulars,
Among those cited as defendants in the
s,t brought in the United States courts
are Samuel Gompers. president: Frank
Morrison, secretary; John B. Lannon,
James O'Connell, Max Morris, Thomas !.
Kidd and Dennis Hayes, vice-presdents Of
the American Federation Of Labor; John A.
Motif, president, and the other officers OF
the United Hatters of North America, and
these members of the Danbury hatters'
unions; George J Morehouse, George H
Gilbert, William p Bailey. Howard S. Gil
bert Charles Green, Charles Iathrop, John
McDole, Charles j. Barrett. Simon Blake
Hugh c. Shalveri, Michael c. Griffin. Patrick
r. Connolly. Albert B. Hoyt, Charles Moore
James Whitney, William Brennan, Homer
Rockwell, John r, Paul. Charles Flynn,
JOHN W. Sculley, stephen Carlin, William
&. Hennely, Daniel p Kelley, j OHare
and {, j. Lee -
In discussing the suit tonight Daniel
Davenport. counsel for the American Anti
Boycott Association, said:
~ persons business is his property and
he IL entitled TO protection from unlawful
interference Herewith. Every person has
a right to carry on his lawful business.
according to his own discretion and to en-
ploy therein any means which are safe.
healthful and lawful. The organization
or the cooperation Of workingmen is not
against public policy, provided it is con-
fined to lawful purposes sought by the use
Of lawful means. II such an organizatio ion
resorts to unlawful means to attain its pur-
poses. it becomes an unlawful association.
"This Is Fundamental principle Of law
Every one Of tho 400 600 members of the
AmericanFetleratiou l Of Labor is Individually
liahl' for all damages sustained by any
person through acts don" 10y its members
or agents in carrying into effect any ur-
lawful purpose Of that organiza ion, or { s
a result of unlawful acts authorized by
II, however commendable may he the OBJ
Ject for which they are done
Every person injured by boycott
has legal remedy for the damage suffered
by him thereby against the individual
members of acombnat ion. The Sherman
Antitrust act prohibits every contract
combinati ion lin the form of trust or other
wisel anu conspiracy IN restraint OF trade
bet ween the 81 Ia e} end makes them unlaw-
full and criminal and gives 10 any person
whose bushes or propert if injured thsra.
by an action for the roc overy of 'hreCfCl !!
the damages suffered by him against arv
or all IN" persons who enter into such COM
binations or cOnspraC les
These suits promise to Ire bitterly con-
test ed, ana az constitutional quest ors are
involved they will undoubt eddy be taken
to the I'ri'cd States Supreme Court for
final adjudication.