Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-09-12
Hat Manufacturers of Danbury
 Begin Proceedings.
FEDERATION LABOR OFFICERS

Plaintiffs Allege Their Goods Were
 Boycotted in the United States and
 Canada-That Their Men Were
 Called Out on Strike, and Ask Dam
 ages of $240,0OO and $1Oo,0O0 Re-
 spectively.
 Bridgeport, Sept 12.-In the United States district court, to-day, T. D. Loewe < Co of Danbury, hat manu- facturers instituted suit against the national officers of the American Fed5 eration of Labor, the national officers of the United Hatters of North Ameri- can and against 250 members of these organizations, residents of Danbury. who were formerly in the employ of the plaintiffs.
 The plaintiffs allege that because they refused to employ only union labor in their factory, upon demand of the union in 1901, their goods were boycotted both in the United States and in Canada, and in 1902 the union men employed by the plaintiffs were called out on strike. Damages. of slO man antitrust law
 similar suit has been instituted iN the superior court of Fairfield county against the same parties. Tn this suit damages of S10OO0O are claiIned and an injunction restraining the defend- ants from prosecuting the boycott Is sought. The papers were drawn up by Attorney Daniel Davenport of this city, who Is chief counsel for the American Anti-Boycott association, of which Loewe & Go is a member Loewe &, Co will be supported in the suits, it is understood. by the association
 The defendants are Samuel Comp CTS, president of the American Fedora tion of Labor; and the following off, cers of that organization: Frank Morrison, secretary; John B. Lennon, treasurer; John Duncan, John, Mitch- ! ell, James O'Connell,, Martin Morris, Thomas I. Kidd and Dennis A. Hayes, l vice-presidents; the following officers of the United Hatters of North Ameri- ca: President James A. Moffit, Vice President Martin Lawlor; Secretary John Phillips; Treasurer James P. Ma her and Charles J Barrett, Robert Pierson, Peter Gallagher, John Byrne, Mark l.. White, George J. Phillips, William Clayton, Michael Brennan, Frank Keegan and Charles Morris, di- rectors. The men on strike against whom the suits are brought are meii- bers of Danbury locals numbers l, 2
 10, II, 15 and 16.
 l Tn the suit brought in the United States district court Loewe $ Company allege that they are hat manufacture CTS; that in April, 1901, the Hatters' un- | na %<NS Sx,H, to uIionize their factory and that upon their refusal to do nothing was done except to place boycott upon their 1 goods not only in the United States but l also ill Canada, because at that time the union men were engaged in enfcrc- ing H. H. Roeloff & Go of Philadelphia and +. Berg & Go, Orange, N. J., hat
 manufacturers to yield to their de- mands.
 This they succeeded in doing in July 1902, matter of about 14 months, 1t is alleged, during which the boycott upon the plaintiffs goods continued,
 and in the month named after accom- plishing their ends with the Philadel-
 phia and Orange firms attention was turned to the plaintiffs. At that time both union and non-union men were called out on strike by the national of ficers. The plaintiffs alleg0 that l the strikers left hats unfinished and in bad shape Moreover 1 they allege that the United Hatters of North America are the sole possessors l of trademark and label which can
 be used only on hats made by union | labor, and that the use of the label is employed by the defendants to further | the sale of hats made by union labor to the detriment of the employers of non-mion hatters. The complaint fur ther alleges that the journals Of the American Federation of Labor and of the United Hatters of North America have been used to publish and to point out the goods manufactured by Loewa l Ss Go as goods which should not be bought.
 All of this is alleged in the cozn~ plaint to be in direct violation of an. net of congress (the Sherman antitrust
 law, which is entitled "An act to pro-s | tect trade and commerce against l1n- l lawful restraint and monOpoly.'
 The plaintiffs allege that they have
 been damaged by having their factory l crippled, and through being unable to | fill their orders which were on hand l at the time the strike was declareds, :,
 that the unions were guilty of conspir- 1 acy and that they (the plaintiffs had
 been accused by the labor men Of hav- l ing driven their employees to extreme l measures by their persistent, unfair l and un-American policy of antagoniz- l ing union labor, forcing wages down to a starvation scale by giving boys and I cheap, unskilled foreign labor prefer l ence over skilled workmen; that ths I skilled matters had been discharged l simply because they were union men,. l The plaintiffs claim that the circuia- \ ton of these charges made by the I union men was to prejudice the public
 against the firm, and did prejudice the I public, and in order to intimidate the
 wholesale dealer and did intimfdate
 the wholesale dealer and their custom