The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-05-31
DETAILS OF THE
 LOEWE HAT CASE
Text of Opinion Upon the
 Petition for a Rehearing

The United States Circuit Court of lAppeals in Washington has denied the lpetition of the plaintiffs in the case of lD. E. Loewe & CO. vs. Martin Lawlor ipoints involved in the appeal from Ethe United States District court, an opinion upon which was given a few weeks ago reversing the decision Of the lower court. The opinion. upon the petition for re-hearing follows:
 While we fully appreciate the incon- venience which will result from pro- ,ceeding with a new trial of the cause before the rulings of this court as to the law of these leases shall have been reviewed by the supreme court, we are not disposed to reverse those rul- ings and decide this appeal contrary to our convictions in order to facili- tate the presentation of the questions arising upon the appeal to the court of last resort. Nor does there seem to be any way to accomplish like re- suit by ordering a re-argument, and undertaking to certify specific ques- tions; the record is too voluminous and the questions would be too nu- 1nerous and upon those questions we are not divided in opinion.
 There is nothing in the petition to induce a change in the opinion already expressed by. this court; all that there is in the petition may be found in the original argument. Counsel seems to have misapprehended what is said in the opinion about knowledge by de- fendants of the acts done. It has not been decided that it is essential for plaintiff to prove that any defendant had knowledge of all or any of the specific acts done in the campaign against D. E. Loewe & Go. On the contrary it is expressly pointed out that the language of the constitution of the association might be supple hv n its objects unlawful means had been So frequently used within the express or tacit approval of the association that its agents were warranted in as- Euming that they might use such un- lawful means in the future that the association and its individual members would approve or tolerate such use whenever the end sought to be ob- tained might be best obtained there by.'' And in the very next paragraph reference is made to literature of the association and of the federation- minutes. resolutions. reports, procla- nations printed discussions, etc. from which the jury might draw con- clusions as to what any man of or riinary intelligence would expect might he done by these bodies or by their agents whenever the occasion for ac- "tion might arise.
 Counsel is also mistaken in assum- Sng that the court overlooked the sig nifcant fact that the American Fed eration of Labor had a constitution providing for boycotting." We did not overlook this fact, nor the further lfact that the federation did not as a body declare any boycott against plaintiff's firm. Since we did not in- dicate that there was error in admit ting proof of it's action in conven- tions. in committee or of its pub- lished literature. or of what it or it's local branches did In connection with Berg Roelo's or Loewe, or any one else 1t might fairly be assumed that we considered that all these were prop CT matters for the consideration of the jury We did intend to hold, howev- CT and this position has not modified our opinion. that plaintiffs cannot make out a case entitling them to the direction of a verdict in their favor by showing Q) that \. B. was a pay
 ing member of the United Hatters' association: % that the Hatters' as- ieociation was affiliated with the Amer ,fcan Federation of Labor and govern- ed by it's constitution, rules and usages; (3) that the constitution of the federation contains the following: "It shall be the duty of executive council to secure the unification of all labor organiza tions so far as to assist each other in any justifiable boycott and with voluntary financial help in the event of a strike or lockout. when duly approved by the executive council" A boycott directed solely against the transfer of goods from a manufactory to purchasers or consignees within the same state might be "justifable boycott" so far as the Antitrust act IS concerned. and this action can be maintained only for a violation of that statute. (D That on several occa Sions person representing himself to be missionary of the Hatters' associa-