The sun., 1910-01-02

union called upon him and then represent
Rtives OF the oiRRrnakers' union called
upon him. They insisted that he write
TO Mr.. LoOwe urging him 70 unionixe his
shops.
Customers would not buy his hats and
his salesmen and drivers kept telling him
how unpopular he was making himself.
! for unionism was strongly intrenched in
Richmond. He thought the Loewe hat
was one Of the best on the market. He
thought that Mr.. Loewe was a gentleman
who would not be apt to have trouble with
his employees. He wrote Loewe several
letters, which were read. He finally ceased
purchasing from Loewe.
why did you stop dealing with Loewe?"
was asked Mr.. Stokes in the deposition.
He replied: -Because they stopped our
business in Richmond and the fight would
probably be continued in our Southern
territory. By they ! mean the labor
organizations in Richmond. with the
tha GIFTED Hatters,"
The means that the walking delegates
used In Philadelphia and elsewhere were
similar TO those used in Richmond, except
that the dealers succumbed because OF
threats OF having their names placed on
the unfair list" and extreme measures
were lot necessary. Eli +. Keen's Sons
OF Philadelphia. iobbers and retailers OF
hats, bought in the year 1901. before the
strike, $50 ss5.87 worth of Loewe hats.
alS, 1927 worth OF Loewe hats, and in 1903
their purchases amounted to only s4,
sS2.I4 Gustavus b. Reed, Loewe A Co. q
travelling salesman, in his testimony in
the trial gave quantities OF facts and
figures showing the losses in trade caused
by the strike.
4. ORDER CANCELLED IN CHICAGO.
The firm which was attacked in Chicago
was Longley. Low & Alexander They
were wholesale dealers in hats and caps
and had done business with Loewe n
Co. for years. John A. Low in his depo-
sition told the story Of the battle.
upon him and told him Of the strike in
Danbury. They told him that he had
ordered hats from Loewe and they wished
him to countermand the order. Mr.. Low
did not know at the time that his buyer
had Just placed an order. but he inquired
and he found that an order had been
placed as the men had told him.
Two men representing the United
Hatters also came TO see him. He did not
know who they were. but he knew that
they were in control OF his employees.
They told him that II he did not cancel
his order they would see to it that his
factory was tied up. The firm operates
a factory that is a union shop. The bodies
OF the hats are bought in the East and
they are finished in the Chicago factory.
MIR Low had the order cancelled.
shortly after this Mr.. Low went to New
York. and while there he met President
Mont, Of the United Hatters. He did not
know President Moffitt until he was intro
duced TO him in a restaurant in New York
He could not remember who introduced
Mr.. Mofitt to him. IL was some one
whose face was familiar. After prelimi-
nary conversation Mr.. Moffitt said:
"Sou are buying goods from ID. Z.
Ioewe Of Danbury. aren Z your
4 ehaN kss
4 want you said President Mofitt.
TO write Mr.. Loewe asking him to put
union labels in his hats:
Il won't do it," said Mr.. Low.
Are you not a friend OF union Iabor''
questioned the labor president.
we have a factory that employs union
labor replied the Chicago dealer. but
] get non -union goods when l want them"
aIf you do not stop buying I.oewes
hats I will take the label away from you
in your factory in Chicago said Presi-
Go TO hell with your labell- said Mr..
Low.
Mr.. Low testified that President Mofitts s
attitude was domineering and disagree
able. At the time of the interview Mr..
Low said that he was not buying Loewe
goods. The interview had its influence
to keep him from buying Loewe's goods.
He did not tell Loewe Of the interview.
TIRE ORGANIZATIONS BEHIND THE Plight.
Aside from evidence OF the boycott
itself much OF the time Of the trial in
Hartford was taken up with showing the
relations TO the suit OF the American
Federation Of Labor and the Ameri G an
Anti-Boycott Association. The Ameri-
can Federation OF Labor in its conven-
ton OF 1908 heartily approved the fight
which the striking hatters were waging
The executive council reported resolu-
ton to the convention. which was adopted.
This was after the Supreme Court had
passed on the legal phases OF the case and
IL was known that trial on the merits
OF the case would be had.
The resolution recited that whereas
attachments had been issued against the
property Of the members OF certain locals
OF the United Hatters in the Loewe case,
and whereas the United States Supreme
Court had decided that Loewe a Co. was
entitled to damages IL IL suffered loss. il
was resolved that moral and financial
would be given to the members in ques-
ton. The executive committee was au-
thorized to carry the resolution into
effect.
The relation Of the Anti-Boycott As
sociation TO the suit was shown to be very
close. Daniel Davenport. the senior
counsel for the plaintiff. is one Of the
organizers OF the Anti Boycott Associa-
tion. Mr.. Loewe is one OF its members.
Mr.. Loewe told Mr.. Davenport to bring
ltlG buib hIiu nr HcttCbcu NMlC uclChuduhn
The Anti-Boycott Association is paying
the bills
-You will not pay back to the associa-
tion the expense to which It has gone in
prosecuting this suit?' asked Judge Platt.
~No,- was MIR. Loewe's response.
Mr. Lowe said that the purpose OF the
association was to protect its members
from boycotts by strikers. The con-
stitution and bylaws. which were read.
showed that the association Is main
tanned by assessing each member one
tenth OF per cent. OF his payroll for not
more than six months in any one year.
When the amount reached $3.50. 900 the
assessment ceased until the funds became
as low as 100000. when the assessments
were renewed.
The expenses OF the American Fedora
tion OF Labor are paid by dues. At the
time OF the strike the Danbury hatters
were paying six cents each to the Ameri-
can Federation OF Labor year A. Mr..
Davenport put il, go strikers were getting
the powerful machinery OF the American
Federation OF Labor with it's ramifications
throughout the country at yearly outlay
OF less than SIS.
CHEAP AUTOS IN DEMAND.