New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-09-13
TO TEST THE BOYCOTT.
DANBURY HATTERS SUITS
Federation of Labor Charged 9th
Violation of Anti-T'rust Act.

Bridgeport. Conn. Sept. 12.-In the United
States District Court to-day D. E. Loewe & Co,
OF Danbury, hat manufacturers. began suit
against the national officers Of the American
Federation OF Labor. the national officers OF the
United Hstters Of North America and against
two hundred and fifty members OF these or
ganizations. residents of Danbury. wig were
formerly in the employ Of the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs allege that. because they re-
fused to employ only union labor in their fac
tory. 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 en-
Ployed by the plaintiffs called out on
strike. Damages Of $4,000 are asked for
under the Sherman Antitrust law.
SUIT IN STATE COURT
A similar suit has been begun in the supe-
rior Court of Fairfield County against the same
persons In this suit damages Of 100000 are
sought and an injunction is asked for re-
straining the defendants from prosecuting the
boycott The papers were drawn up by Daniel
Davenport. Of this citv. Who is chief counsel for
the American Anti Boycott Association. of which
the firm of Loeyve & Co. is a member.
The defendants are Samuel Gompers. presi-
dent OF the American Federation Of Labor. and
the following officers Of that organization:
Frank Morrison secretary. John 3. Lennon,
o'ConnelL Martin Morris Thomas I. Kidd and
Dennis 4. Hayes vice-presidents. and the fol-
lowing officers Of the Union Hatters Of North
America: President James 4 Mofftt. Vice
President Martin Lawlor. Secretary John Phil
lips, Treasurer James P. Maher and Charles Bar
rett Robert Pierson. Peter Gallagher. John
Byrne. Mark L, White, George J. Phillips. VIII
lam Clayton. Michael Brennan Frank Keegan
and Charles Morris. directors.
WORKINGS OF THE BOYCOTT.
The men on strike against whom the suits
are brought are members Of the Danhury locals
Nos 1. 2. 10. II. Ia and 16.
In the suit brought in the United States Dis
trict Court Loewe & Co, aIege that in April, 1901
the Hatters' Union of Danbury declared a boy
colt against their goods. but did nothing else
for fourteen months because of fight against
H. H. Roelof & Co, of Philadelphia, and F.
Berg & Co, Of Orange, y. J., hat manufacturers
1t is further alleged that after forcing the two
firms mentioned to make their factories union
all the union men in the plaintiffs factory were
called out on strike.
The plaintiffs allege also that the trademark
Of the United Hatters OF North America is en-
ployed by the defendants to further the sale Of
hats made bv union labor TO the detriment Of
the employers Of non-union hatters; and that
the journals Of the American Federation Of
Labor and of the United Hatters Of North
America have been used 70 denounce goods OF
Loewe & Co
All Of this, il is alleged in the complaint. is I'm
direct violation OF act Of Congress tthe
Sherman Antitrust law, which is entitled an
act 70 protect trade and commerce asainst TN
lawful restraint and MONOPOLY
1t is also claimed that the persistent csfc2sl4-
ton Of charges against the plaintiffs F5s Qreiu-
diced the public and inundated wholesale
dealers. with consequent financial loss TO the
firm.
Loewe & Co. alege that the defendants with
the United Hatters of North America. for many
years have. been trying to force all nanufect-
urers Of fur hats in the United States TO union
ize their shops
BANK ACCOUNTS ATTACHED.
The real estate and interest in realty Of each
defendant are attached Attachments are also
issued against the trade unions and defendants
accounts in the banks
Among those mentioned are the Dsnbury Ma
tional the City National the Savings Bank Of
Danbury and the Union Savings Bank of Dam
bury, the Fairfield County Savings Bank, Nor
walk Savings Society. South Norwalk Savings
Bank. National Bank of Norwalk Fairfield