Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1914-01-02
RESPONSIBILITY
OF LABOR UNIONS
Is Fixed by United State
Court Of Appeals in The
Danbury Hatters Case
RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS
Joining Together Gives No
Immunity For Acts Illegal
For the Individual

In affirming the decision of the low
er court in the now famous Danbury
hatters' case, the United States Court
of Appeals has settled the question Of
the responsibility of labor unions for
acts such as if committed by individ-
uals would come, without question,
under the provision of the antitrust
act. For more than ten years this
case has been before the courts, and
a number of the most prominent lead
ers of labor have been involved III
it. 1t grew out of the attempt of a
labor organization to unionize the
factory of manufacturer of hats
and their failure to do so. Failing in
this, the hatters' union, which was a
member of the American Federation
of Labor, enlisted the assistance Of
that latter organization, and a boy
colt was inaugurated against the pro.
ducts of the Danbury factory wher-
ever they might be offered for sale.
The company brought suit against
the union under the clause of the anti
trust law which prohibits combinations
in restraint of trade, and the case has
dragged it's weary way through sew.
eral courts. Finally judgment was
secured against the United Hatters Of
North America for 1882, 130, and with
interest and costs, the judgment now
amounts to $272,00O.
Sustaining the second judgment, the
court declares that it is no longer de-
batable that the antitrust act is ap-
plicable to such combinations as are
alleged in the complaint, and that
the act makes no distinction between
class Of combinations or individuals.
The court held that it had been clear
ly established that the plaintiffs were
engaged in an interstate business and
that the defendants were members
of trades union and affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor
one of the objects of the federation
being to assist it's members in any
"justifiable boycott and with financi'
al help in case of a strike or lock
out.
In concluding the decision of the
court the judge said, "No one disputes
the proposition that labor unions are
lawful. All must admit that they are
not only lawful but highly beneficial
when they are fairly and legally con-
Quoted, but, like all other cOmbina'
tions, irrespective of their objects and
purposes, they must obey the law"
Soon after the suit was brought,
the American Federation of Labor de.
cided to stand behind the defendants
and to reimburse them against any
loss. Then the anti-boycOtt society
of America took up the battle for the
plaintiffs, and the fight has been one
between these two organizations. The
case was first set for trial in the
United States district court. but be-
fore that event, it was taken to the
Supreme Court for an Interpretation.
Early in 1908, the court handed down
decision holding that the alleged
acts were in violation of the Sherman
law. 1t then went to the district court
and after a long trial the jury gave q
verdict for the plaintiff in the sum OF
$74,OO0. In accordance with the law
the Judge awarded triple damages
to $232,34O. That verdict was set
aside by the Court of Appeals, and
in second trial. the jury rendered a
judgment against the hatters for $50,
00O which was, according to law
again tripled. The case was again ap
pealed with the result noted at the
beginning of this article.
1t will be remembered that during
the administration of President Taft
congress passed the civil appropriation
bill carrying provision for the en-
forcement of the antitrust law, but
expressly forbdding the use of any
of it for prosecution of the associa
tions of labor or of farmers. The
president vetoed the bill on the
grounds that that portion of it was
unconstitutional. The same bill CAM
up for the approval of President VIII
son and he signed it, saying. however
that other funds were available FOL
such purposes. The opinion OF Presi
dent Taft is supported by the courts
The lesson from this case woult
seem to be that the exemption ot
labor unions from penalties for the
violation of laws which apply to othe
organizations or combinations will no
receive the support of the courts il
this country, nor should it. 1t alst
proves that however cowardly may bt
|