Norwich bulletin., 1915-01-06
Danbury Union
 Hatters Lose
MUST PAY S252, ,1so.oe FOR BOYCOTT
 UNDER ANTITRUST LAW
SUPREME COURT FINDS
Ends ii Years of itigation-Money Of Bank Accounts and Properties Under Attachment - Foreclosure Next.

Washington. Jan. 5.-Ending eleven years of litigation, the supreme court today held that some two hundred Connecticut labor union members must pay $252, ,130.G9 damages under the sherman antitrust law, for nation wide boycott of D. F. Loewe & con- pany Danbury. Conn.,, hat manufac- turers, who refused to unioniZe their shops. The bank accounts and homes of many of the men already are under attachment to pass the judgment, and the next step probably will be fore closure.
 Leading lawyers of congress dis agreed today on whether this decision
 meant that union workmen would be l liable in the future for damages on | account of boycotts.
 Some hold that the Clayton anti | trust law, passed last year after this suit had been tried, would make an- other such prosecution impossible. l Largest Judgment Under Sherman Law l It was in the Danbury matters case that the supreme court decided i'll 1908 that labor unions were subject to the terms of the Sherman antitrust law and sent the suit back to the New York federal courts for trial. The l judgment, the largest ever before the court under the Sherman law. as well as the vigorous defense of the union men, attracted widespread attention to l the litigation.
 Courts Decision Unanimous.
 Justice Holmes announced the courts unanimous opinion today. His discus l sion of the law involved was brief. He said the ground for discussion under i the Sherman law had been cut away 1 by the 1908 decision to a large extent and narrowed further by the decision 1 in the eastern states retail lumber ! dealers case of last year. to the effect l that the circulation of list of 'un- | fair dealers" with the intention to put 1 the ban upon these dealers, among a l body of possible consumers, combined with a view of loint action, was viola 1 tive of the Sherman antitrust law.
 A Forbidden Combination. ] Most of the decision dealt with the 1 facts and application of the law to the 1 facts. The justice pointed out that the i defendants were some 200 members of l both the United Hatters Of North ! America and of the American Fedora 1 tion of Labor. With brief cousidera- 1 ton he arrived at the conclusion that ] the New York federal courts which ] tried the case were right in holding ] that a forbidden combination had been 1 proven.
 Primary and Secondary Boycott. 1 Tt requires more than the blindness l of justice" said Justice Holmes, not ! to see that many branches of the ] United HatterS and the Federation of 1 Labor, in pursuance of a plan emanat- 1 ing from headquarters, made use of such lists (unfair dealers) and of the ] primary and secondary boycott in their l efforts to subdue the plaintiffs to their 1 demands. The union label was used l and a strike of the plaintiffs employees 1 was ordered and carried out to the ] same end and the purpose to break up 1 the plaintiffs commerce affected by the quality of the acts.
 
 1 Members Jointly Liable. l ''The court in substance instructed 1 the jury that if these members paid | their dues and continued to delegate authority to their officers unlawfuIly 1 to interfere with the plaintiffs inter state commerce in such circumstances l that they knew or ought to have ] known and such officers were war l raEted in the belief that they were l acting in the matter within their dele gated authority, then such members were jointly liable and no others. It seems to us that this instruction suf- l iciently guarded the defendants rights and that the defendants got all that | they were entitled to ask in not being 1 held chargeable with knowledge as matter of law"
 1 Damaqes Threefold the Injury. 1 The damages, which under the law were threefold the injury suffered, were approved over the objection that some of them accmed since the action 1 Tcp9T1