The Sentinel=record., 1915-01-06
DANBURY HATTERS' BOYCOTT
CASE DECIDED AND UNION is
FINED S252, 1909.
PROPERTY IS ATTACHED
Celebrated Boycott Case is Settled
After Eleven Years Of Litigation.
bers Effected.

Washington, Jan. Finding eleven
years Of litigation, the supreme court
today held that some two hundred
| Connecticut labor union members
must pay $252, l3o.09 damages under
the Sherman antitrust law. for
nationwide boycott of D. T.. Loewe a
Co.. Danbury, Conn. hat manufactur-
ers, who refused to unonZe their
shops The bank accounts and homes
OF many OF the men already are nm.
der attachment to pay the judgment
and the next step probably will be
| foreclosure
Leading lawyers of congress dis
Iagreed today on whether this decision
meant that union workmen would be
liable in the future for damages ON
account of boycotts Some hold that
| the Clayton antitrust law. passed
last year, after this suit had been
tried. would make another such pros
ecution 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 anti
trust 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 at
attention to the litigation.
Justice Holmes announced the
courts unanimous opinion today. His
decision of the law involved was
brief. He said the ground for discus
sion under the Sherman law had been
cut away by the 1908 decision to a
large extent, and narrowed further by
the decision in the eastern states
retail lumber dealers case OF last
year to the effect that the circulation
Of list Of unfair dealers" with the
intention to put the ban upon these
dealers. among a body of possible con
sumers combined with view OF
joint action, was yiolatve Of the
Sherman antitrust law.
Most of the decision dealt with the
facts and application Of the law to the
facts. The justice pointed out that
| the defendants were some 200 mem
bers OF both the United Hatters of
North America and of the American
Federation of Labor With brief con
sideration, he arrived at the Conclu-
sion that the New York federal
courts which tried the case were right
in holding that a forbidden combina-
ton had been proved
1T requires more than the blind
ness of justice, said Justice Holmes,
not to see that the many branches
OF the United Hatters and the Fedora
ton of Labor in pursuance OF plan
emanating from headquarters, made
use of such lists (unfair dealers) and
of the primary and secondary boycott
in their efforts to subdue the plaintiff
to their demands The union label
was used and a strike of the plain
tiff's employees was ordered and car
ried out to the same end, to break up
the PLAINTIFFS commerce affected by
the quality of the acts"
This left the controversy. narrowed
down to the responsibility of the de
labor organizations The defendants
were laboring men, as a rule, not EN-
ployed by f.oewe q Co, but living IN
nearby towns. and a few were ma
tional officials OF the hatters' union
On the question of responsibility the
justice said:
The court in substance instructed
Inn hot ], 4
their dues and continued to delegate
authority to their officers uniawfully
to interfere with the plaintiffs inter-
state commerce in such circum-
stances that they knew or ought TO
have known, and such officers were
warranted in the belief that they were
acting in the matters within their
delegated authority then such mem
bers were jointly liable and no
others. 1t seems TO US, that this in
struction sufficiently guarded the de
PENDANTS rights.
1T is tax on credulity to ask any
one to believe that members OF labor
unions at that time did not know that
the primary and secondary boycott
ana the use OF the we don't patron
ize' or unfair list were means ex-
pected to be employed in the effort to
unionize the shops Very possibly
they were thought to be lawful
In support of the conclusion that
the members knew of the means to
unionize the shop, the justice referred
to the hatters union bylaws for strike
and union label agitation funds, and
cited the provision in the American
Federation Of Labor constitution for
prosecution of what it called legal
bOycotts.'
"lf the words of the documents on
their face and without explanation
did not authorize what was done he
: continued. THE eKidence OF Mhnt WAS