Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-12-19
DANBURY HATTERS
CASE AFFIRMED
COURT OF APPEALS SAYS UNION
MEN MUST PAY IOR
NALK-OUT.
ONLY ONE MORE Court
For Ten Years the Famous Danbury
Hatters Case Has Been Buffetcd
About From Court 10 Court

NEW YORK Dec. 1s.-The Unit
ed States court OF appeals today de-
cided the famous Danbury Hatters
case in favor OF d. L. Loew and Co.
the plaintiff, and against the United
Hatters OF North America, The
court affirmed a judgment in favor OF
Mr. Loew and against the Htttcrs or
ganzation for $252 80.
With interest and costs tie Judg-
meut now amounts to 272,O0O. AT
the first trial, held in 1903 the plain
tiffs obtained a judgment for 1882,
240.
Sustaining this judgment Judge
Coke declared that II was now no
longer dcbatable that the antitrust
act is applicable to such ccmbina-
tions as are alleged IN the complaint
and that the act made no distinctions
between combinations.
Judge Coke said In conclusion OF
his findings: mo one disputes the
proposition that labor unions ar.
lawful An must admit they are not
only lawful but highly beneficial
legally and fairly conducted, hut like
all other combinations, irrespective
Of their objects and purposes, they
must obey the law"
In Court Ten Years.
DANBURY, Conn, Dec. 1S.-The
socalled Danbury Hatters case has
been before the courts for more than
ten years. once it was before the
United States Supreme Court OF tho
240 original defendants more than
thirty have since died and two have
gone insane The American Fedora
tion Of Labor supported the hatters
and prominent labor officials, includ-
ing Samuel Gompers and john Nit
chell. gave testlm ony at some Of the
trials.
A walkout Of union hattors em-
ployed by ID. l.. Loewe and Company
in 1901 was the beginning Of the
case. The factory up TO that time
and since has been conducted on a
non union basis. In 1902 d. r..
Loewe & Co., brought suit against
Martin LaWler and 239 other MEM
bers OF the Hatters Union, alleging a
boycott that was in violation of tho
Sherman antitrust law, In that inter-
state commerce was restrained. The
company alleged that its business
had been seriously injured by the
boycott and claimed s250,00a DANA
ges
After many delays the case was as
signed for trial in the United States
district court but was not then tried,
being taken to the supreme court or
the United States for an interpreta-
ton. In February, 1908, the supreme
court handed down a decision In ef-
feet that the allegations constituted
a violation of the Sherman law. In
October, 1909, the trial was begun
before the United States district court
at Hartford After trial OF IT
weeks the jury returned C verdict
~ the plaintiffs OF $4,000. Judge
P.att, now deceased, awarded triple
damages, in accordance with the
Sherman law, so that with costs the
total amount was 1892, $40.
The verdict was set aside by tho
court OF appeals and new trial or
dercd. Federal Judge Martin OF Ner-
mont heard the second trial at Hart
ford and on October II. 1912, the jury
rendered a verdict for the plaintiff or
$50. 900 and costs, the amount being
trebled according to law. The case
was appealed again and the argu-
ments were heard In New York last
month.