New-York tribune., 1910-02-06
THE D4NBURY VERDICT

The verdict given on Friday IN the
celebrated Danbury hatters' boycott case
was largely matter Of form. since the
United States Supreme Court had al
ready passed on the vital point in dis
pute. which was whether or not sec
ondary boycott conducted by LABOR
union constituted an unlawful restraint
of trade The Supreme Court held. III
dismissing a demurrer filed by the de-
PENDANTS. that if the facts alleged by
the c0mplainants. the hat making nfm
of n. r. Ioewe < Co. could be eStab-
lished they constituted a violation Of
the Sherman antitrust law. The de-
Tending labor union contended that the
successful secondary boycott which II
had been conducting WAS not punishable
under the Sherman law, because that
law was not applicable TO efforts on the
part of a labor union 10 interfere with
the sale to outside parties of the prod
ucts Of manufacturing concern with
which the union was engaged in hos
tilities Judge Platt, of the United
States District Court for the District of
Connecticut, instructed the jury that the
facts of the conspiracy TO deter persons
not members of the union from dealing
with the boycotted firm were too plain
to be disputed and ordered the jurors
to bring in a verdict of guilty. using
their judgment only as TO the amount
of damages.
The hatters' union will take an ap-
peal on the ground that the verdict of
rr-ith ic nyooSSiTp That
amount NAV be reduced, but no matter
what the reduction may be the i'm
portant principle will remain decided
that a labor union has no special rights
under the antitrust .aw and must
face the legal penalties for practising
intimidation and similar restraints
on trade and commerce just as any
other corporation or organization must
which undertakes to use an Illegal
weapon like the blacklist or the second
ary boycott One form of compulSion
in restraint Of trade is just as odious
as another If a labor union and
manufacturing concern disagree, each
has n right TO declare nOnintercourse
with the other. The concern is entitled
10 discharge its employees, if contracts
do not prevent. and the employees have
Il right TO agree not 10 use the articles
manufactured by the employer The
two combatants may boycott each other
directly. but they must fight ii out fairly
between themselves and refrain from
drawing innocent third parties unwill-
ingIy into the quarrel. The boycotted
concern is not entitled to cUnspire with
other concerns 10 deprive the bOycotters
of employment. or TO threaten or annoy
other concerns which do employ them.
Similarly. the boycOtters must not use
intimidation TO discourage outsiders
from handling or buying the boycotted
firms products. 1t is a fair law. work
ing impartially both ways. Were black
listing and secondary boycotting allowed
one small labor dispute might spread
so as 10 involve the whole country and
entail loss, annoyance and privation on
millions Of people in no way concerned
in the dispute and having no proper
interest one way or another in its settle
ment
The antitrust law was passed in or
der to protect the public against arti-
fetal interference of all sorts with free
dom of commerce. It's prohibitions are
aimed at trade and manufacturing com
binations formed 10 restrict output, SUP
press competition. intimidate middlemen
or otherwise shut the consumer out of a
free market They are also logically
and necessarily aimed at labor combina-
tions which try TO accomplish the same
results in carrying out a policy Of
private prescription.