The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-12-19
UNION Men LOSE
Verdict Rendered Against Hat
ters for easO,1s0 Damages.
Case Probably win Be Ap.
pealed to Supreme Court.


states court Of appeals has decided
the famous Danbury hatters' case in
favor Of D. e. Loewe, the plaintiff. and
AGAINST the United Hatters OF North
America. The court affirmed . judy
ment in favor of Loewe and against
the hatters' organization for S15z.lSO.
with interest and costs. The Judgment
now amounts to $4,000. At the first
trial held in 1909 the plaintiffs obtained
. Judgment for $232, 240.
Sustaining the second judgment.
Judge Cox declared that 1t was no
act Is applicable to such combinations
Is are alleged in the complaint" and
that the act made no distinction be-
tween classes OF combinations or tndi-
viduals.
The court held that It had been
were engaged in an interstate business
and that the defendants are members
Of a labor union, and affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, lone
OF the objects Of the latter Organtza-
ton being to assist its members In any
.tustidable boycott and with financial
help in the event Of strike or lock-
out"
II was shown at tho trial that in
March, 1901, the United Hatters had re-
solved to unionize the factory of the
plaintiffs and that Mr.. Loewe had bF -
informed by the union officials that me
matters would resort to the usua!
methods in case their plans should
meet with opposition. On July s. 1902.
the plaintiffs employees were directed
to 60 on strike and, 1t IL claimed. that
almost Immediately boycott was es-
tablished. The plaintiffs assert that
this measure converted a profit of
81, 900 in 1901 into losses ranging from
81, 900 in 1902 to $1,000 in 1904"
Judge Cox said in conclusion OF his
findings:
mo one disputes the proposition that
In Dor unions are lawful. All must nd-
NIT that they are not only lawful but
highly beneficial when legally and
fairly conducted, but like all other
combinations, irrespective of their OBJ
jects and purposes. they must obey the
law"
Alton B. Parker. counsel for the de-
PENDANTS. announced that the case
would probably be taken to the United
States supreme court for review.
History Of the Case.
Danbury, Conn. Dec. 1s.-The so-called
Danbury Hatters' case has been before
the courts for more than ten years. Once
It was before the United States supreme
court. OF the A0 original defendants.
more than thirty have since died and two
ton Of Labor supported the hatters and
IS labor officials. including Samuel
Gompers. John Mitchell and Frank Nor
ri:on. testified ct som, some Of the trial. n,on
by D. e. Loewe & Co.. 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 1903. .. q.
Loewe & Co. brought suit against Martin
Lawler and z39 other members OF the hat
ters' union, alleging q boycott in violation
Of the Sherman antitrust law. In that In
terstate commerce was restrained. The
company alleged that the business HAD
been seriously injured by the boycott and
claimed S260,000 damages.
American Federation of Labor decided to
stand behind the defendants and to reim-
burse them against any loss. The Anti
boycott Society OF America supported the
plaintiffs. so the litigation in reality de-
veloped into legal battle between these
two organizations. After many delays.
the case was assigned for trial in the
United States district court, but was not
then tried, being taken to the supreme
court Of the United States for an interpre-
court handed down a decision in effect
that the allegations constituted violation
Of the Sherman law. In October Of the
next year the trial was held before the
United States district court at Hartford.
After a trial Of seventeen weeks. the jury
900. Judge Plat, now deceased. awarded
triple damages in accordance with the
Sherman law 80 that with costs. the total
amount was $2s2. 80
The verdict was set aside by the court
Of appeals and q new trial ordered. Judge
Martin, Of Vermont, heard the second trial
in the United States district court at Hart
ford and on October II. 1912, the jury
returned . verdict for the plaintiff of $780,
900 and costs. the amount being trebled
according to law. The case was appealed
again and the arguments were heard in
New York last month.