The daily telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1901-1926, 1915-01-30
THE HAsKIN LETTER
THE DANBURY EIATTERS, CASE
By Frederlc ]. Aaskin,.

The Danbury Hatters' case recent.
ly decided by the supreme court al
the United States. Is in many respects
the most celebrated law suit in Amer.
lean experience. 1t lasted more than
eleven years and the full reports oil
its slow course through the courts IL
to be found In no less than ten vol
tunes of reports the most volumin-
GUS case on record.
On the dockets the case appeared
as that of Loewe and Company vs.
Lawlor ct al. but 1t was popularity
known as the Danbury Hatters' case,
since 1t was an action brought by hat
manufacturers against the hatters'
union for damages caused by boy.
colt. which was held to be an act In
RESTRAINT Of trade as forbidden by the
Sherman antitrust law.
Briefly stated, the supreme court
has decided after eleven years OF lit
igation, that labor unions have no
legal right to restrain interstate COM
merce by means OF circulating an
unfair list" by boycotting goods,
and using other like methods to force
the closed union shop upon manu-
facturer of hats in Danbury, Conn;
and has held the individual members
of the union liable for damages re-
sulting from such acts of their Of
ficers done by authority OF the rules
of the union.
In 1901. ID. Z. Loewe and Martin
Fuchs were partners engaged in
making hats at Danbury, Conn. They
had $50 employees. With an output
of about 100000 annually, their
trade extended through twenty
states, including Arkansas. Califor
mia, Illinois and Maine. They en-
ployed both union and non-union
workmen.
The United Hatters of America
was the name of the hatters' union.
In 1901 1t had 5000 members, and
Twas one of the 10 branches of the
American Federation of Labor, which
had membership OF 100000.
In March. 1901. the Hatters'
Union made a demand on the firm
of Loewe and Company to unlonize
its mill. The demand was refused.
A strike was called and boycott
declared, and Martin Lawlor. and
four other men appointed by COM
imittee to enforce the demand of the
Hatters' Union by all means in their
power. An active prosecution Of tina
boycott all over the country by the
Hatters' Union and the American
Federation Of Labor resulted in the
4 partial ruin of the business of Loewe
and Company.
In September, 1903, Loewe and
Company filed suit in the United
Estates circuit court in Connecticut,
against Martin Lawlor and several
hundred other defendants, members
Of the union, alleging that they had
conspired to restrain Interstate COM
merce by unlawfully interfering WITH
land preventing sales Of Loewe and
! Company hats to customers in varf-
Gus states where their trade extend
ed, in violation of the provisions of
/: lagos of $50, were asked, and the
of the individual defendants who
lived in Connecticut were attached.
The unions made three defenses.
One was that, not being engaged in
! interstate commerce themselves,
Whatever they did could not violate
the antitrust act. The next defense
was that boycotting was not a viola
tion of law. The third was that, as
most Of the men sued had not direct
ly done the acts complained of by
Loewe and Company. being merely
members of the union, these de-
tandenats should not be held liable
leven If other active agents were re-
The case has been five times be-,
fore the circuit court in Connecticut.
four times before the circuit court Of
appeals. and three times before the
supreme court of the United States.
The trial judge ruled in favor of
the defendants in 1906. His ruling
was reversed by the supreme court OF
the United States in 1908. The opin-
ion was written by Chief Justic Full
err and held that the members OF la
! Dor unions who combined to inter-
s!fers with and restrain interstate
: commerce were liable under tho
Sherman ANTITRUST law; that boycott
ting and kindred acts charged were
illegal; and that those who author
lied such practices were liable for
damages.
The case was then received by a
jury in Connecticut and a verdict
against all the defendants for STA
600 was returned. This time the
defendants appealed and the case
came finally to the supreme court
again-in 1911. Because Of tech.
meal errors committed by the judge
this time in favor of Loewe and
Company. the verdict was ordered to
be set aside, and another jury trial
was had in the Connecticut federal
court in October, 1912. which re-
4 suited in another verdict OF $74,-
600 against the defendants. This
verdict carried with it triple dam
ages under a provision OF the Sher-
man act, and so, Judgment was rem
dered for $252.130 against the de-
PENDANTS, which included costs. at
torneys' fees and interest.
On January S, 1915, Justice
Holmes in the supreme court render
de an opinion affirming this judy
ment, and the case is ended. The
defendants will have the judgment 80
pay for the last trial conclusively
settled all points at issue. No
further appeals can be taken. Ac-
4 tcording to the supreme court ruling