The morning journal-courier., 1908-02-04
Danbury Matters Are Awarded Damages by Supreme
 Court.
DECISION IS UNANIMOUS
Unions Action Declared in Restraint of Trade Under Anti
 Trust Act

damages sustained by comDlnatlon III restraint of interstate trade may be invoked to prevent boycott by or ganized labor was held to-day in a decision by the Supreme court of the United States in the case of Loewe x CO, hat manufacturers, of Danbury Conn, vs. Martin Lawlor and zoo other members of the United Matters Union of; that city. The decision of the court was announced by Chief Justice Fuller, and reversed the holding of the Unit ed States Circuit court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
 The opinion of the court was unani- nous, and no dissenting view was pre- scented
 We think said Chief Justice Fuller, in conclusion, that case within the statute was set up and that the de- murrer should have been overruled"
 The decision therefore reversed the ruling of the lower court, and the case was remanded with direction to pro .ceed accordingly. Chief Justice Fuller said:
 ''In our opinion the combination de- scribed in the declaration Is a combin tion in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states In the sense in which those words are used in the act, and the action can be maintained on many judgments of this court, to the effect that the act prohibits any combination whatever to secure action which essentially obstructs the free flow of commerce between the states, or restricts, In that regard, the liberty of trader to engage in business.
 i'The combination charged falls with in the class of restraints of trade aimed at compelling third parties and strang- CTS involuntarily not to engage in the course of trade except on conditions that the combination imposes; and there is no doubt that, 10 quote from the well-knoWn work of Chief Justice Erie on trade unions. ''at common law every person has individually. and the public has also collectively a right 10 .requlre that the course of trade should he kept free. from unreasonable ob- struction.' But the objection here Is to the jurisdiction, because, even con ceding that the declaration states the case good at common law It is con tended that 1t does not state one within the statute. Thus, 1t is said that the restraint alleged would operate to en- tirely destroy the defendants business and thereby include interstate trade as well; that physical obstruction is not alleged as contemplc ed, and that de- fendants are not themselves engaged in interstate trade.
 We think none of the objections are tenable, and that they are disposed of by previous decisions of this court"
 The suit was instituted by Loewe & Co, In the United States circuit court for the district of Connecticut, the company alleging damages by boycott against their factory to the extent of $so,ooo, asked for judgment for s24O,- 600 in accordance with the terms of the sherman act. Not only the mem. bers of the Matters union, but the American Federation of Labor, of which the union is subordinate or ganization, was included in the bill In the complaint 1t was illegal that the labor organization had undertaken to compel the manufacturers 10 unionize their factory, as a large majority of other hat factories in the United States had been forced to do, and, it was asserted that when they failed in this effort the union matters withdrew and Induced other employees to do so. This act was followed by the declaration of a boycott against Loewe's hats wher- ever they were found; and, as the firm controlled an extensive trade through out the country, the boycott extended to many states. which in the language of the bill. constituted combination 10 limit and restrain interstate com merce
 The circuit court experienced consid- erable difficulty in dealing with this point. Declaring that neither the man ufacture nor distribution of hats is interstate in character, the judge pre- siding in that court found it neces- sary to decide whether combination which seeks to interfere with both the manufacture and the distribution sim ultaneously is one which directly af- fects transportation from one state to another. The effect of that decision was favorable to the union, as it held that the supreme court had not broad ened the sherman act so as to make it fit such condition Accordingly the complaint was dismissed on demur- Ter, and the dismissal was affirmed by the court of appeals The decision or the appellate court was today in turn overruled by the supreme court.
 The part of the complaint dealing with the Federation of Labor alleged that that organization employs 1000 persons to carry into effect it's boycott. It says that they act under the in- mediate supervision and personal d. rection of one Samuel Gompers, who is chief agent of the combination.
 Reference is made to the fact that an unfair list" is published by the federation, and it is asserted that that organization was formed for the pur- pose of facilitating the declaration and successful maintenance of boycotts. to compel the unionizlng of shops and thereby control the employment of la bor and subject industries to the su- pervision of persons other than their owners
 The principal lawyer for the union in this case was John K Beach, of Bristol. Stoddard, Beach and Fisher of