Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1908-02-07

Up Certain Phase of Sherman Act
For First Time--Complainan.s En-.
titled to Three Times Damages
Washington, Feb. 4.-For the third
time within a few weeks the supreme
court of the United States has promul-
gated an opinion constituting laws ad-
versely to the contentious of organized
labor.
The verdict rendered yesterday was
in the case of Loewe 4 Co.. hat manu-
facturers of Danbury. Conn. VS.. Mar
tin LAWYER and 200 other members of
the United Hatters' union of that city
The case involved the applicability of
the seventh section of the Sherman anti
trust law to conspiracies by labor I'M
ions to boycott articles entering into
interstate trade. Under the terms Of
that provision. the complaining party
may collect three times the amount of
his loss if the charge is sustained
The union fought the case on the
ground that the law was inapplcabe
TO such organizations, but the court
whose opinion was announced by Chief
Justice Fuller. failed to accept this
view. and in effect held that the unions
could not be permitted to interfere by
boycott with the free exchange of COM
merce between the states. There was
no dissenting opinion.
ID. f. LOewe head of ID. f. Loewe &
Co.. had built up in 1903 business that
amounted to 100000 annually. He
hired men for their skill. made no dis
tinctiOnS as TO race. creed. or associa-
ton, paid the best wages. willingly Oh
served the union rules as to what con-
stituted days labor. His men were
devoted. but his factory was not "un-
ioniZed." He allowed men to draw good
wages from him who were not members
of the United Hatters of North Amer
lea.
Two attempts We're made to induce
Loewe to employ only union men and
use the union label on his manufac-
lures. Each time he explained that he
had tried the unioniZed shop and that
he had found it a handicap to his bust
ness. One reason was that the large
soft-hat shops, being independent, were
not restricted as he was and could al
ways undersell him. On both occa-
sions Loewe refused to make his un-
ion shop and adopt the union label.
The Hatters' union Immediately inst-
tuted a boycott on Loewe hats. Being
a member of the Federation of Labor,
the United Hatters requested that that
great body boycott ID. E. Loewe & Co.,
On report of the boycott committee It
did so.
BY notices in union newspapers. by
circulars. by advertisements in daily
newspapers. by personal intimdations.
dealers in hats were notified or warned
not to buy or sell Loewe hats. Getting
a list Of the firms customers, the I'M
ion boycott agents would call upon
them. and ask them TO stop trading
with Loewe. If they did not stop, then
boycott would be instituted against
the refractory dealers. They would see
trade dropping away and would yield
Loewe's trade was restrained, dimin-
ished and in many places destroy ed"
by these methods. Meanwhile. union
men in his employ were called out on
strike; the non unionists were told that
Loewe could not resist, and if they
wanted jobs when the strike was over
they must join the union and leave
Loewe. Many were thus prevailed up
on. But enough were obtained to re-
open the factory to fill what orders the
boycott had left to him.
Had not the Anti Boycott association
taken up his case, he would. no doubt
have been forced to the wall Backed
by the association, which includes all
sorts Of employers of labor throughout
the country, Loewe under Connecticut
law brought a suit for 100000 against
the officers and certain members of the
unions involved. and attached the
bank accounts and real estate Of each
separate defendant.
Under section of the Sherman anti
trust law, he brought suit for $24O,O 600
charging that the unionsts named did
''wantonly, maliciously, unlawfully,"
and in violation of the ant-restraint o.
trade law, conspire to injure the prop
erty and business of the plaintiff, and
prevent him from carrying on trade ami
commerce among several states. In
junction was asked also to restrain the
furtherance of the boycott.
This question the court answere'
yesterday. 1t was the first time the
question had been raised as to whether
or not the effect of a boycott on the
business a manufacturer transacts out
side his own state comes within the
purview of the Sherman act