Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1908-02-04
.SHERMANLAW
USED AGAINST
LABOR UNIONS
THIRD DECISION AGAINST
WORKING MEN
BOYCOTT DECLARED RESTRAINT
OF COMMERCE
Hat Manufacturers Claim for Heavy
Damage Is Upheld by United
States Supreme
Court
b. Associated Press.

By Associated Press.
WASHINGTON, Feb 3.-That Sec
lion or the antitrust act, awarding to
the complainant three times the
amount of damage sustained by
combination ir restraint of interstate
trade, can be invoked to prevent
boycott by organized labor was held
today in a decision by the suDrere
court OF the United States in the case
of Loewe & Co.. hat manufacturers OF
Danbur7, Conn. against Martin Law
lor and 200 other members of the
United Hatters' union of that city.
The decision of the court was an
nounceJ by Chief Justice Fuller, and
reversed the holding of the United
states circuit court of appeals for the
second circuit
The opinion of the court was unani-
nous.
The suit was instituted by Loewe &
90. in the United States circuit court
in Connecticut The company, alleging
damages by boycott against thelr
factory TO the extent of $4,000, asked
for a Judgment for s24O,00O in accord
ance with the terms of the Sherman
act.
Not only the members of the hat
ters union. but the American Fedora
ton of Labor of which the union is a
subordinate organiza tion, was includ-
ed in the bill In the complaint 1t was
alleged that the labor organization had
undertaken to compel the manufactur-
FRS to unionize their factory, ana IL
was asserted that when they falled III
this eff ,rt the union hatters WltndreW
and induced ether employees to 90 So
THIS acts as boycott against Loves
hats wherever they were found, ana as
tbe firm cont oiled an extensive trade
throughout the country the boycott
extended to msny states, which, in the
language of the bill, constituted COM
Lination to limit and restrain inter-
state commerce.
The unions advertised their boycott
against the firm In labor organizations
IN different parts of the country, ana
in consequence the firm claimed that
;ts business fell off outside the state.
ictions were brought at different
places, notably at San Francisco
Against Organized Labor
For the third time within month
the supreme court of the United states
promulgated an opinion constituting laws
adversely to the contention of organ
lied labor.
The first of the decisions was rem
dered January in the case of some
railroad employes who sought to secure
damages under what is known as the
employers' liability law, making rail-
roads responsible for injuries resulting
from the negligence Of fellow servants,
which law the court held to be uncon-
stitutionai. -,
The second important finding in this
,ine was announced on the 23d inst,
when the Erdman arbitration act, for
bidding the discharge of employees De-
cause they are members OF laDor
union, was also declared to be Invalid
The verdict rendered today was in
the case of Loewe VS. Lawlor, the lat,
ter member of the Hatters' union ana
the former hat manufacturers VI b"h-
FuIler's Opinion
After quoting many precedents and
reciting the complaint in the case,
Chief Justice Fuller continued:
1.-THE averments here are that there
was an existing interstate tra1nc pe-
tween plaintiff and citizens or other
states and that for the direct purpose of
destroying interstate traffic defendants
combined, not merely to prevent plain
tiff from manufacturing articles then
and there intended for transportation
beyond the state, but also to prevent
the vendees from reselling the mats
which they had imported from Connec-
ticut TO the various places OF destlna-
ton.
80 that although some of the means
whereby the interstate traffic was 10
be destroyed were acts within a state,
and some of them were in themselves a
part of their obvious purpose ana
effect beyond the scope or leoeIal
authority, still. as we have seen, the
acts must be considered as a whole,
and the plan is open to condemnation:
Notwithstanding a neglible amount OF
interstate business might be a1fected IN
carrying 1t out.
IF the purposes of the complhatlohs
We're, as alleged, to prevent any inter.
state transportation at all the 1act tnaI
the means operated at one end petore
physical transportation commenced az
the other end after the physical trans
portation commenced at the other emo
after the physical transportation enued
was immaterial. Nor can the ACT III
question be held inapplicable because
the defendants were not themselves en-
gagged in interstate commerce. Inc act
made no distinction between classes.
1t provided that every contract, com.
bination, conspiracy in restraint OF
trade was illegal. The records of con-
gress show that several efforts were
made to exempt by legislation organ
izations of farmers and laborers from
the operation of the act and that ali
these effor.s failed, so that the act re-
mained as we have 1t before u.s."
Daniel David of Bridgeport, Conn,
associated with James M. Beck of New
Urn SitS do SOuIiSei IOT lne pldlilllil1
in the case of Loewe VS.. Lawlor, today
made the following statement regarding
the situation:
Applies to Workmen
"The United States supreme court to-
day by its decision in the case OF
Loewe VS.. Lawlor declared illegal and
criminal under the Sherman antitrust
act all combinations of workingmen
boycotting the interstate business OF
manufacturers who sell their goods in
other states other than that Of manu-
facture.
80 long as the American Federation
of Labor and other labor unions resort
to the boycott as a weapon of attack
upon the Interstate business of manu-
(Continued ON page two)