The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-04-18
Stand Pat Decision By Supreme Court
 In Hatters' Case
Plaintiff With Whom Union Men Would Not Work May
 Get Damages
Special to The Farmer)

1 Hartford, April 1S-In an opinion
 written by Judge Prentice the su-
 preme court remands the Hatters' case 1 Tor a retrial, finding error The lower court denied damages to the plaintiff l bom1ntck Somers, who had been dis | charged from his employment as a l natter because he was not a member or union and because his employers labor.
 The opinion of the court seems to l declare that a contract to employ only union labor is against public policy, ana if this shall prove to be its true intent may have a sweeping effect up- on the relations between employers ana Union men, there being many in- oustr1es in Connecticut which have contracted to employ union help only
 The plaintiff was employed by the Von Gal Hat Co.,. Danbury. There was strike and the plaintiff, Domi-
 nick Corners, went out. While the
 strike was in progress, he was sus-
 pended from the union. Sept. 21 1902
 he returned to work, the strike be-
 Ing over, but the union men refused
 to work with him, and the Won Gal company declined to give him employ ment He then sued for damages
 The court holds that the question is one of public policy. He says that it
 would be difficult to find a. more marked instance of a large cornmun- ity given over to single industry. or one where tI1es individual, if he elected for reasons of his own. not to join the union. was placed in a more disad- vantageous position. 1t was apparent that the seeds and fruits of monop- oly were present in striking measure. The field of labor had been substan- tially monopolized
 '-In the presence of such facts" says the opinion, ''it was the plain duty of the court to have compiled with the plaintiffs request to instruct the jury that the defendants sole attempted Justification. based as it was upon the restrictive agreement between the enn- p1oyers of Danbury and vicinity and the United Hatters, and action to se- cure the enforcement of it's provision for the non-empIoyment of non-union men, was not a justification in law since it was one involving the use of means forbidden by public policy.''
 The opinion says that the court left it to the jury to determine as a Ques- ton of fact whether or not the agree ment and it's enforcement was contra ry to public policy. Continuing Judge Prentice says:
 of the jury in determining it were not correct. We find the court falling in to error of losing sight of the means employed in the actual results which followed, Or judging the character of the means by the results produced. The jury was told that before it could find the enforcement of the agreement contrary to public policy it must take into consideration all the circum- stances of the trade in Danbury. etc. This proceeds upon the fundamentally mistaken theory that a contract or combination is to be judged as to public policy by results which may have come from it. The law examines the contract or combinations itself, to learn what 1t threatens, what its evil tendencies are and what possibilities of harm to the general welfare lie within it.
 s'The defendants claim in support of the plea of justification the part the union label played in the situa- tion We fail to discover any clear statement of reasons for this claim. The United Hatters have a property right in the label, but they can no more employ 1t for an unlawful pur- pose or as an unlawful means than any other person any other thing which he may happen to own or con trOl''