Evening star., 1915-01-30
THE DANBURY HATTERS'
CASE.
By Frederic ]. Haskin.

Z!=====0g
The Danbury Hatters' case. recently
| decided by the Supreme Court of the
! United States, is in many respects the
most celebrated lawsuit in American
| experience. 1t lasted more than eleven
years. and the full account of its slow
| course through the courts is to be
| found in no less than ten volumes of
reports-tlle most voluminous case on
record.
On the dockets the case appeared as
that of I.oewe & Co. VS.. Lawlor ct al,
but it was popuiarly known as the
Danbury Hatters' case. since it was an
action brought by hat manufacturers
against the hatters' union for dam
ages caused by a boycott, which was
held to he an act in restraint of trade
as forbidden by the Sherman antitrust
law.
Briefly stated. the Supreme Court has
decided after eleven years of litigation
that labor unions have no legal right
to restrain interstate commerce by
means of circulating an unfair list
by boycotting goods, threatening pur-
chasers thereof with the loss of union
trade and using other like methods
to force the closed union shop
bury, Conn: and has held the indi-
vidual members of the union liable for
damages resulting from such acts of
their officers done by authority of the
rules of the union.
In 1901 D. f. Loewe and Martin Fuchs
were partners engaged in making hats
at Danbury. Conn. They had a3O em-
ployes. With an output of about $780,
through twenty states, including Ar
kansas, California. Illinois and Maine
They employed both union and non
union workmen.
the name of the hatters' union. In
1901 it had 5000 members and was one
or the ITO branches of the American
Federation of Labor. which had a
membership of 100000.
X :
In March, 1901, the Hatters' Union
Co. to unionize it's
Boycott Begun mill. The demand
Of Loewe' Hats. s.r;,o - ase' n.as ,o,,o',
and a boycott declared, and Martin
Lawlor and four other men appointed
by a committee to enforce the demand
of the Hatters' Union by all means in
their power. An active prosecution of
the boycott all over the country by the
Hatters' Union and the American Fed
GRAFTON of Labor resulted in the partial
ruin of the business of Loewe & Co
In September, 1903, Loewe & Co. filed
suit IN the United States circuit court
in Connecticut against Martin Lawlor
and several hundred other other de-
PENDANTS, members of the union, alleg-
ing that they had conspired to restrain
interstate commerce by unlawfully in
terfering with and preventing sales of
Loewe & Co. to customers in various
states where their trade extended, in
violation of the provisions of the Sher-
man antitrust act. Damages of $1,000
were asked. and the bank accounts and
other property of the individual defend
ants who lived in Connecticut were at
tached.
The unions made three defenses. One
was that, not being engaged in inter-
state commerce themselves, whatever
they did could not violate the antitrust
act. The next defense was that boy
cotting was not a violation of law. The
third was that. as most of the men sued
had not directly done the acts COM
planned of by Loewe & Co, being
merely members of the union, these de-
PENDANTS should not be held liable even
if other active agents were responsible.
The case has been five times before
the circuit court in Connecticut, four
times before the circuit court of ap
peaIs, and three times before the Su-
preme Court of the United States.
The trial Judge ruled in favor of the
defendants in 1906 His ruling was
reversed by the Su-
Supreme Courts preme Court of the
n United States in
was written by Chief Justice Fuller,
and held that the members of labor
uAions VINO combined to interfere with
and restrain interstate commerce were
LID BILE under the Sherman antitrust
law, that boycottlng and kindred acts
charged were illegal, and that those
who authorized such practices were
liable for damages.
The case was then received by a jury
IN Connecticut aud II verdict against
all the defendants for $4,000 was re-
turned. This time the defendants ap-
pcaled, and the ca Sc came finally to the
supreme Court again--in 1911. Be
cause of technical errors committed by
the Judge this time in favor of Loewe
* Co.. the verdict was ordered to be
! set aside, and another jury trial was
| had in the Connecticut federal court in
i October, 1912, which resulted in an
other verdict of $4,000 against the de-
| fendants. This verdict carried with it
| triple damages under provision of
| the Sherman act. and so judgment was
rendered for s252,130 against the de-
| PENDANTS. which included costs, attor-
| neys fees and interest
| January 5. 1915, Justice Holmes in
/ the Supreme Court rendered All opinion
! affirming this Judgment. and the case is
] ended. The defendants will have the
( judgment to pay, for the last trial con-
| clusively settled all points at issue
/ No further appeals can be taken. Ac-
+, cording to the Supreme Court ruling
| circulating the unfair list" and boy
, cotting indulged in to restrain inter-
state commerce, whether done by labor
unions or any other associations, ex-
poses those doing such acts to very
heavy penalties.
Some lawyers believe that section {
of the Clayton bill, which was passed
| last fall. will op.
Clayton Bill crate to rende,
May Aid Labor. nnions os Gr ;n,r,,ma ,auo,
from, prosecution under the ruling OF