The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1908-03-05


reaching decision which it has ever
handed down. This decision directly
affects all labor and hence the whole
i people. The case was that OF the Loewe
America. The court invoses the sherman
anti trust law and under it decides that
the Hatters are liable in damages ac-
cording To the complaint OF the Lr-s.s
Co. This action was first brought in
the United States Circuit Court in the
District of Connecticut, under section
of the Sherman antitrust law. The
lower court sustained the contention of
the Hatters tnat they We're no. liable
under the Sherman law.
No more sweeping, far-reachng and
important decision has ever been issued
by the supreme Court. The bred Scott
decision did not approach this in scope
and Importance, for it only dicroed that
any runaway slave could be pursued ii
he made his escape into free state and
his return compelled by all the powers
of the government, to his owner to
slave state. Any person who assisted
in the escape of " slave or who har-
iboASa Souto bS PioSSSutSu liic
courts for a criminal ofrense. Tint de
cision involved u few negro slaves vino
could make good thei, escape from n
,lave.holding state. The civil war an.
nulled the decision OF the Supreme Court
and freed the slaves. It cost the lives
Of hundreds OF thousands OF brave men
on both sides and emnncipatcd from
chattel slavery four millions of slaves.
No man now proudly points Ia that IA
nous Dred Scott Supreme Court decis-
ion.
The decision of the Supreme Court in
the Hatters' case involves every worker
and every sympathizer, with the emo
bling work of tile labor movement, or our
land. A study of this momentous de-
eision reveals some strange peculinrities.
Outside of the opening paragraphs quot.
ed above. the sdecis:ci.sy yhas -
other than the citation of cases wIici,
are held to illustrate and support it,.
There are references to injunctions
granted under the Sherman anti trust
act and brief comment upon the citn
tions, the decision gives an outline of the
complaint incorrect in many particu-
lars, especially in it's summary of boy
colt proceedings by the Hatters 1t
quotes directly and at great length from
the complainant tIoewe Coz
The col:rt takes the amazing view that
even the very successful effort of the
Hatters' union to obtain and maiI.:,,in
industrial peace with employers is proof
o. unlawful conduct-that is, "conspirpl
icy'-nnd under the Sherman anti-trw
law is unlawful and punishable by bss
mulcted in damages and by fn9
imprisonment.
as a matter of fact neither the Hat
tors nor any other trade ever attempted
to force all manufacturers against their
will' to make agreements with the union.
Common sense teaches that voluntary
agreement between an employer and
'uclon must be a peaceful one.
THE COURTS ERROR IN FACT.
In the case in point the boycott by
the Hatters against the Loewe Co. did
not result in fetoer. hats being purchased
hy the community; therefore we can not
see how there was any restraint of
trade The boycott, if effective, merely
diverted the purchasers to some other
make of hats. The polnmc of trade soas
the same, though for certain reasons
some manufacturers may have sold more
hats than others. We fail to see that the
Hatters did anything more than or
d1nary business competitors do when
they try to divert business to themselves
from other competitors by advertising
The Hatters tried to divert the hat
business to the products of union labor.
Since their boycott neither obstructed
nor decreased the total volume of trade