The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1910-02-05
HATTERS' CASE WILL BE TAKEN TO U. 5. SUPREME
 COURT IF NECESSARY
JUDGE ROBERT E. DE FOREST OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS, STATES TO FARMER,
 THE ATTITUDE OF HIS CLIENTS
The Defense Had Hoped tn at Questions of Fact Would Be Left for the Jury a nd Believe that the Charge of Federal Judge Patt Instructing the Jury to Find for Loewe & Co., Was E rroneous.

Judge Robert E. DeForest,. of cour- sel for the defense, in the famous Oanbury hatters' case. announced to- day. to the Farmer, that an appeal will be taken to- the U. $. Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, if necessary, from the Verdlct giving $222,0O0 damages to Loewe & Go.
 Judge DeForest, in brief inter- view, sums up the situation. express ing the claims of the plaintiffs and tine views of the defense.
 Complete expression is given to the disappojntmenu of the defendants, be- cause the facts were not left to the jury
 Judge DeForest also expresses the belief of the defendants that the charge of Federal Judge Platt, to the jury, was erroneous.
 The verdict of the jury in the cir cult court will be hard blow to the defendants, if the decision is nnaily sustained. There are about 2OO or them, residents of Danbury, Bethel and South NorwaIk, whose property has been attached.
 Judge -DeForest, in his statement, appears to lay some stress upon the
  be lia ble, though they were only mem bers of local labor unions ana the acts complained of were actually done by officers or agents of the United Hatters of North America. with which the local unions are affiliated.
 Judge DeForeSt, in speaking on the case. said this morning, to Farmer reporter, who had asked him for h1s views upon the situation:
 This litigation has been misappre- hended more or less. It went to the Supreme Court, on demurrer, and the Supreme Court held that the allega- tions in the complaint might stand under the Sherman Law. At this the impression gained currency that the case of the defendants had received a death blow. But this was mis- take. Ti-e decision of the Supreme Court was merely due to the ability of MT. Davenport, the attorney for the plaintiffs, to construct a case on paper.
 ssThe question of proof was for the jury And for five months we have been trying the case, in the belief that the jury would pass upon the vital questions of fact.
 Tn order to make out case under the Sherman Antitrust Law it was indispensable to show conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce, in manner injurious to the plaintlffs in terstate business.
 '.The Supreme Court had decided that in order to be a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law the act com Diained of must be an actual restrain, must be calculated to directly and necessarily operate as restraint, must be done with intent to restrain and must be done pursuant to com tination, or conspiracy of several per- sons, to restrain interstate commerce. ."The complaints asserted LOewe & Co. to be engaged in interstate com uaerce because they in fact manufac- ture hats in Danbury, which were in fact sold and transported beyond Connecticut, into other parts of the United States, and that the defen- dants engaged in conspiracy to re- strain the interstate commerce belong ing to Loewe & Company.
 'sIt was also alleged that these 200 defendants, more or less, who were simply members of local unions, in Danbury, Bethel and South Norwalk had conspired together to restrain the interstate commerce of Loewe & Co. contrary to the Sherman law, and with intent and for the purpose of restraining such interstate com merce of Loewe x Co.,, and that pur- guant to, and to carry out their said objects, had, by threats and coercion. caused all operatives in the hat shop of the plaintiffs to leave their em p1oyment, without notice to the em- DIoyers. in order to cripple the business of Loewe & Company and to prevent it from filling it's orders. And that by reason of this fact the business of the plaintiffs was injured and they lost profits.
 '1t was also alleged that these, 200 defendants had organized, and pro- noted a boycott against the inter state commerce of Loewe & Company and induced and coerced his custom CTS in various parts of the country, outside Connecticut, to withdraw their trade from them, and that so the company's business was crippled and it's profits diminished.
 All of these allegations were de- nied, that the defendants had so con- spired. or had so acted, or that the plaintiffs namely had any interstate commerce
 s.It was denied that the defendants had any intention to interfere with. the interstate trade of Loewe & Com pany.
 All these were issues of fact which the defense, from October until the present time, a period of five months, had supposed would be decided by. the jury.
 'It was not really claimed that the defendants in person had actually done any of these acts, but it was claimed that the acts were done, through officers, or agents of the Uni- ted Hatters of North America with which the local unions in Dsnbury, Norwalk and Bethel were affiliated, and of which local unions the defend ants were merely members.
 "The claim really amounts to this: That whatever was done by any off, ger or agent of the United Hatters of North America made every local mem Der personally liable for damages un- Ser the Sherman law.
 "Yet there was nothing in the char ter or bylaws of the United Matters of North America which seemed at all to warrant this claim. It seemed. in fact, from the evidence. that if any boycott was instituted. or prosecuted it was done by some officer. or agent of the United Hatters of North Amer ca outside of the constitution and by avs and without authority.
 ''It was moreover very clear, from the evidence, that the strike was not caused by threat, or coercion exerted against anybody, or by any other means than by the natural fealtv of the union men who did strike, to their unions. and there was as it seemed