Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1915-01-08
UNIONS MUST
PAY JUDGEMENT
United States Supreme Court
So Decides After Eleven
Years Of Litigation
FORECLOSURE is NEXT
Attachments Already Placed
! Upon the Homes and Bank
, Accounts Of Members


years of litigation, the supreme court
has held that some 200 Connecticut
labor union members must pay 1852, ,13O
damages under the Sherman antitrust
law for nationwide boycott of D. E.
Loewe & Co., Danbury, Conn.,, hat
manufacturers, who refused to union.
ize their shops. The bank accounts
and homes of many of the men already
are under attachment to pay the judg.
ment, and the next step probably will
be foreclosure.
Leading lawyers of congress dis
agreed today on whether this decision
meant that union workmen would be
liable in the future for damages on ac-
count of boycotts. Some hold that the
Clayton ANTITRUST Jaw, passed last
year after this suit had been tried,
would make another such prosecution
impossible
1t was in the Danbury hatters case
that the supreme court decided in 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
judgment, the largest ever before the
court under the Sherman law, as we'll
as the vigorous defense of the union
men, attracted widespread attention.
Courts Opinion 10 Unanimous
Justice Holmes announced the
courts unanimous opinion today. His
discussion of the law involved was
brief. He said the ground for dis.
cussion under the Sherman law had
been cut away by the 1908 decision
to a large extent, and narrowed furth.
er by the decision in the Eastern
States Retail Lumber dealers case
last year to the effect that the circu.
lation of list of unfair dealers,
with the intention to put ban upon
these dealers, among a body of pos
sible consumers, combined with a
view of joint action, was violative
If the Sherman antitrust law.
The justice pointed out that the
defendants were some 200 members OF
both the United Hatters of North
America and of the American Fedora.
ton OF Labor. With brief considera
tion 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
proved.
1T requires mere that the blind
ness of justice" said Justice Holmes
mot to see that the many branches
of the United Hatters and the FEEDER.
alton of Labor, in pursuance of a
plan emanating from headqus rters,
made use of such lists (unfair deal
ers) and of the primary and second.
airy boycott in their efforts to sub
due the plaintiffs to their demands.
The union label was used. A strike
of the plaintiffs employees was or
dered and carried out to the same
end, and the purpose to break up the
plaintiffs commerce affected by the
quality of the acts"
Responsibility Narrowed Down
This. left the controversy, he add
ed, narrowed down to the RESPONSE
bility of the defendants for what was
done by the laobr organizations. The
defendants were laboring men as a
rule not employed by Loewe & Co.,
but living in nearby towns, but a
few were national officials of the
Hatters' union. On the question of
responsibility the justice said
"The court in substance instructed
the jury that if these members paid
their dues and continued to delegate
authority to their officers unlawfully
to interfere with the plaintiffs inter-
state commerce in such circumstances
that they knew or ought to have
known and such officers were war
ranted in the belief that they were
acting in the matters within their del
egated authority, then such members
were jointly liable and no others. 1t
seems to us that this instruction suf-
ficiently guarded the defendants
rights and that the defendants got all
that they were entitled to ask in not
being held chargeable with knowledge
as a matter of law"