The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1915-03-09
4EATTERS PLEA
TO CONGRESS
Full Text of Petition Made to
That Body by Defendants
In Loewe Suit.

The following is the full text of the
petition presented to Congress by the
descendants IN the case of D. b. Loewe
IS &c. against members Of the United
lHakters OF North America, asking for
federal relief IN connect1on with the
ppymemt of tK7s Judgment obtained
Ny the plaintiffs IN the case:
sTe the Honorable Senators and Rep
resentattves OF the states, compris-s
ing the United States Gin Congress
Assembled:
We the subscribers, residents and
citizens of the state and District of
Connect1cut. respectfully represent:
That we are journeymen hatters,
and for many years have been mem
bers OF local associations of hatters;
ass0caati ons formed not for profit, but
for mutual protection and advance
men&; associations OF which the
membership are Justly, proud. for the
reason, among others that their ex-
the period OF the Revolution. at
which time they were known as Hat
&ers' Gui1ds,'' and by virtue of MEM
berSh1p In such associations we have
beccna members of the United Hat
herg OF North America That your
petitioners, the subscribers hereto,
are not officers Of the United Hatters'
Association or of the local unions Of
which we are members. Indeed many
lof US, by reason of advanced age are
exempt from attending meetings and
payment Of dues. Nor have any one Of
5l1s5 taken any part. either directly or
Indirectly, in the doing of the several
acts for which We have been cast In
Judgment in the sum of over quar-
ter OF million Of dollars. and under
which the Judgment editor Will now
take the little savings resulting from
al lifetime Of work and frugality. g.
large part consisting of the humble
homes In which we have hoped to
pass our declining years. The statute
upon which has been restedstte claim
OF right to a judgment against us is
the so-cal1ed Sherman act, passed by
your honorable body. and approved
;on the I'd day of July, 1890, and en-
Titled: ssAn Act to Protect Trade and
fCommerce Against Unlawful Re-
5strafnt and A1onopolies.'s ~
We are informed that sa1o act WAS
mot designed or intended to apply to
FOR AFFECT labor organizations on COM
Ibinanons of working men, and this
was stated repeatedly in the discus
ksion of the measure in and by your
honorable body prior to Its enactment
Into law, and neither the subscribers
Rnor any other persons had any knowl-
ledge that the law could be held to
apply to the normal acts or labor or
EXAMINATIONS until the question had
sbeen submitted to and decided by the
supreme court Of the UnftedS States
the matter coming to said supreme
court from the decision OF the trial
Judge by whom, as a question OF law,
1T was decided that the law did not
sapplY to associations Of working men,
Nevertheless, IN an action brought
by D E. Loewe and another, in Sep
tenbexs 1908. against yotif petition
ers and number OF others, many of
whom have since deceased, the plain
tifTss have recovered Judgment, not
Only for the fall amount of damages
a
aggregate, is three times the amount
OF the damages actually sustained by
the plaintiffs The theory OF the ac-
ton is that the defendants conspired
together to restrain the Interstate
trade and commerce. OF the plaintiffs.
The methods employed to that end. 1t
Is charged, were:
~ A strike, by which the union
employees Of plaintiffs quit work. It
is not pretended that the strike was
sConnecHcuts or that q single act was
committed by any one of the strikers
which was not lawful under the law
Fof that state. Indeed, the strikers
never sought to even discourage any
lone from entering the employ of the
plaintiffs On the contrary. they adj
kgised non~union workmen to continue
athe work All the strikers did was
ITO go away, never to- return. More
lover, not one Of your petitioners was
ban employe OF the plaintiffs.
Cd It IS further alleged In the
complaint and proven. that for a
humber OF years prior to the acts
fcomp1a1nad Of the United Hatters' AS
isociafion had agents upon the road
Enrging the purchase OF hats bearing
the union label But this was not IL
legal Indeed, sound public policy
mot only encouraged but sl1thorized
dts uses as is shown by the fact that
the statutes Of forty-one states permit
the use of the union label, and the
courts protect 1t from the frauds per-
petrated by those who would adj
Vantage themselves by the popu1arf-
~ OF the label The theory OF the
plaintiffs Is that, notwithstanding the
sanction of the law, the union label
can be, and is, made an effective in
strument Of boycott As it happens in
the case, a jury has been encourage
by the courts to ind that a strike law
fully conducted under the laws of the
state Of Connecticut, ana the use OF
the union label, and of agents in 9th
er states where 1t is perfectly law.
HuI to do SO, together constitute a re.
stra4nt of the plaintiffs Interstate
trade and commerce Assuming, as VIZ
must, now that the court has spoken
that these perfectly lawful acts con
bstItuted an unlawful conspiracy to re
strain the Interstate trade and com.
xnarce Of the plaintiffs within the in,
ftent and meaning OF the sherman
antitrust law, nevertheless, W.
ghumbIy invite Your attention to ths
2act that we, your petitioners, had ne
dot or part whatsoever in the doing
OF any one Of these things to which
reference has been briefly made. W.
repeat, no one of US was in the EN-.
kp1oy OF Loewe & Co but were en-
hp1oyed by other hat manufacturers
bsome In other towns than Danbury
while others Of us were not employed
In the hat making Industry for ter
years prior to the bringing of thu
Loewe suit No one of us was con
suited about it by any enc, officer %
employs No one of us by word Nol
deed sought to bring about or en-
courage the strike. No one of us wa
i&n agent on the road urging the us,
of the hatters' label Nor did we hav,
&ug11t to do with the sending O
e cents I1ren. the road nor ware w.