The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-01-06
Tbe Damages Allowed.

Damages aggregating with interest
about s260,000 are involved in the opin-
ion. That at least part Of the judgment
viii I've collected is strongly intlmattd by
counsel for the defence. because bank ac-
counts and property belonging to many of
the defendants were attached under the
garnishment process allowed by the Con
nect!cut laws.
Daniel Davenport and James NJ. Beck
were the leading counsel for the employing
hatters. Alton Il. Parker and Frank /"
Milhollaud represented the defendant
workngmen. The real parties to the ac-
ton had little to do directly with the case
as II made its progress through the higher
courts.
Organizations Of employers interested
In tho tinal settlement Of problem
fraught with go much good or evil for
the relations OF capital and labor took
w the cause OF the employing matters.
and the American Federation OF Labor
came to the defence of the union matters.
The defence Of the hatteis was that
they as members OF the union could not
be held for any damages inflicted as
the result of the boycott against the
Ioewe firm in the absence OF proof Of
overt acts or direct responsibility. They
denied that they could be made answer
able for the acts Of the officers OF their
union The whole case turned upon this
point, and the court decided II against
the unions
The effect of the decision on the for
tunes of those directly involved was less
discussed here than the possible bearing
il will have on the power OF the courts
in the future TO deal with the boycott d
the strike In view Of the recently enacted
Clayton anti-trust measure. which. accord
ing to the views of some legal authorl-
ties. legalizes boyCotting and p,cketing.
L.. l.. a1Ut II Mtsfu "A
not conspiracies under the antitrust law
It follows that there can he no recovery
by employers i'm civil actions for triple
damages. Many lawyers held. therefore.
that the result attained to-day could not
now he achieved in an action growing
out Of the same state OF facts brought
since the passage OF the Clayton bill.
Some authorities still contend however
that the matter Is an open question and
will not he decided definitely until the
supreme Court passes on the clayton law
Justice Holmes said in his opinion:
'lt requires more than the blindness OF
| justice not To see that many branches OF
the United Hatters Union and Fedora
| ton OF Labor, to both OF which the de-
PENDANTS belonged. in pursuance Of a plan
emanatng from headquarters, made use
| of the primary and secondary boycott m
| their effort TO subdue the plaintiffs to their
demands.
| THE union label was used and STRIKE
| OF the plaintiffs employees was ordered
and carried out to the same end. and the
purpose was to break up the plaintiffs
commerce, affected by the quality of tho
| acts"
After commenting upon the fact thai
| a conspiracy had undoubtedly been proved
Justice Holmes proceeded 10 fix the re-
sponsbillty for It as follows:
at il a tax on credul!ty to ask any one
J bat ~ lahpl
unions at that time did not know that thu
primary and secondary boycott and thu
use OF the we don't patronize' list Of
I unfair list were means expected to b'
I employed in the effort to unonize shops
I'VE think il unnecessary" continued
Justice Holmes after recting the facts
about the dissemination of the literature
through the unions and the Federation o
Labor and the other agencies OF pub
LEFTY. ito repeat the evidence OF publicity
of this particular struggle in the com
mon newspapers and union prints, evi