The sun., 1908-02-04

inappliCable because defendants were not
themselves engaged in interstate commerce
The act made no distinction between classes
IL provided that every" contract, cOmbi-
nation or conspiracy in restraint Of trade
was Illegal. The records OF Congress show
that several efforts were made 60 exempt
by legislation organizations Of farmers and
laDorers from the operation OF the act and
that all these efforts failed. 40 that the act
remained as We have Il before us.
Taking up the two cases in which the
sherman act had been invoked against
the labor unions. one, the New Orleans
stevedore case, In which the union was
enlolned, and the other. the Debs case. in
which the Supreme Court instead based
its judgment on the obstructing OF the
mails, the opinion quotes from Justice
Brewer 3 opinion in the latter case that
q state. with its recognised powers
OF sovereignty. is impotent to obstruct
Interstate commerce. can It be that any
mere voluntary association Of individuals
within the limits Of that State has a power
which the State itself does not possess"
The Chief Justice continues:
The question answers itself. and in the
light Of the autho rifles the only inquiry is
as to the sutiiOienoy Of the aVerment Of fact.
The declaration charges the defendants
formed . combination to directly restrain
plaintiffs trade: that the trade 20 be res
trained was interstate; that certain means
to attain such restraint were contrived to
be used and employed to that end. that those
means were so used and employed by de-
PENDANTS and that thereby they injured
plaintiffs property and business.
The complaint Averred that the plaintiffs
were manufacturers Of hats in Danbury.
Conn., having factory there. and were
then and there engaged in an interstate
trade in some twenty States other than the
state OF Connecticut; that they were prao-
tically dependent upon such interstate trade
to consume the product Of their factory,
only a small percentage OF their entire out
put being consumed in the State Of Connect
cut that at the time the alleged combination
was formed there were In the process OF
manufacturing . large number Of hats for
the purpose OF fulfilling engagements then
actually made with consignees and whole
sale dealers In States other than Connecticut.
and that II prevented from carrying on the
work of manufacturing these hats they would
be unable to complete their engagements.
That defendants were members OF a vast
combination called tho United HAtters Of
North America. comprising about 1900 mem
bers and Including . large number OF sub
ordinate unions, and that they were com
bined with some !. zoo. 900 others into another
association known a. the American Fedora
tion of Labor. OF which they were members,
whose members resided In all the places In
the several States where the Wholesale dealers
In hats and their customers resided and did
business; that defendants were engaged in a
combined scheme and effort to force all manu-
facturers OF fur hats in the United States,
including the plaintiffs, against their will and
their previous policy OF carrying on their
business, 20 organize their wOrkmen in the
departments of making and finishing In each
Of their factories into an organization. TO be
part and parcel OF the said combination known
as the United Hatters of North America, or
as the defendants and their confederates
term il, to unionize their shops with the in
tent thereby to control the employment OF
labor in and the operation OF said factories
and to subject the same to the direction and
control Of persons other than the owners OF
the same. in a manner extremely OnerOus and
distasteful to such owners, and to carry out
such schemes. effort and purpose by restrain
ing and destroying the interstate trade and
commerce Of such manufacturers by means
OF intimidation OF and threats made to such
manufacturers and their customers in the
several states of boycOttnR them. their prod
uct and their customers using therefor all the
powerful means at their command as afOre-
said until such time as from the damage and
loss OF business resulting therefrOm the said
manufacturers should yield TO the said de-
mand to uniOnize their factories.
That the conspiracy or combination was 50
far progressed that out Of eiRhty-twO manu-
facturers OF this country engaged in the
production of fur hats seventy had accepted
the terms and acceded to the demands that
their shops should be conducted in accord
ance 40 far as conditions OF employment were
concerned, with the will Of the American
Federation Of Labor: that the local union
demanded Of the plaintiffs that they should
uniOnize their shop under peril OF being boy
cotted by this combination, which demand
defendants declined to comply with; that
thereupOn the American Federation Of Labor.
acting through its Official organ and through
its organizers. declared Il boycott.
Quoting from the complaint in the case
as to the methods employed by the union
and the averments that the defendants
proceeded TO carry out their combination
10 restrain and destroy interstate trade
and commerce between plaintiffs and their
customers in other States by employing
the identical means contrived for that pur-
pose and that by reason OF those acts
plaintiffs were damaged in their business
and property in the sum OF $4,000. the
court declares I'VE think a case within
the statute was set up.
|. II was stated tonight by Daniel Daven-
port, counsel for d. Z. Lowe h Co, that
real estate and other property amounting
in value to slSO.OOO belonging 70 the 200
members Of the hatters' union in Danbury
had been attached in connection with this
suit and that It would all be forfeited if
the firm succeeded in proving before the
trial court that the damages sustained by
the boycott amounted even to $4,000.
Mr. Davenport also said that the Depart
ment Of Justice would be asked to enforce
the law against the American Federation Of
Labor with respect to the boycott it is
maintaining against some $50 other in
that the matter will be called to the atten-
ton Of President Roosevelt.
President Gompers Of the American Feder-
alton Of Labor tonight declined to discuss