Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-01-06

HATTERS
Washington, Jan. Ending II years
=. g,jgation, the supreme court TODAY
Ia that some 200 Connecticut labor
t,;5n members must pay 1852, 130. 90
,,mares under the Sherman antitrust
la for a nationwide boycott Of D.
roewe & Co.. Danbury, CT, hat
~srufacturers, who refused to union
T.. their shops. The bank accounts and
.,n,ss Of many of the men already are
,,d4r attachment to pay the judg-
-an,. and the next step probably will
IL foreclosure.
Liability Question
Teading lawyers of Congress disa-
,raed today on whether this decision
re3pt that union Workmen would be
rsbla in the future for damages on ac-
ejfrf GI BtNtOllS. kDpIIlt IIOlu lIldl lI6
ilayton antitrust law, passed last
var after this suit had been tried,
vaIli make another such prosecution
rpossihle.
4 vas in the Danbury hatters' case
hat the supreme court decided in 1908
hat labor unions We're subject to the
srnl. Of the Sherman antitrust law.
s-3 sent the suit back to the New
York federal courts for trial. The judg-
-aot the largest ever before the court
-,ier the Sherman law, as we'll as
ne vigorous defence Of the union
men, attracted widespread attention
70 the litigation.
Unanimous Opinion
justice Homes announced the the
ogrts unanimous opinion today. His
dec.sln Of the law involved was brief.
5e sad the ground for discussion I'M
der the sherman law had been cut
away ty the 1905 decision to a large
extent ana narrowed further by the
decision in the Eastern State Retail
LuIltltI Ia. il'I = taSt VI ldSl Nttl "
" effect that the circulation of list
q unfair, dealers" with the intention
70 put the han upon these dealers,
among a body of possible consumers,
umtmed with Il view of joint action,
vas yloatIyc Of the Sherman anti
rlst law
Nest Of the decision dealt with the
iacis AMI application Of the law to
he facts the justice pointed out that
he defendants were some 200 members
q both The United Hatters of North
America AM # the American Fedora
ung Of Labor With brief considera-
H.n be- arrived at the conclusion
aa, The New York federal cos,rts
esich tried the case. were right in
to.iAg that Il forbidden combination
had heen proven.
Use of Lists
II requires more than the blindness
Il .9s'lc",' saId Justice Holmes, not
10 sou tHlf flIaN branches of the Unit
I'd Halt,fS and The Federation of La
er IN pursuance Of a plan cmanat-
a from headquarters made use OF
N.a lists rUulalr Dealers and Of the
primary aAd secondary boycott in their
fbyeS was ordered and carried out to
lt same end, and the purpose to
'frak ny the Plaintiffs commerce at
tr,ed by the quality of the act
This left the controversy, he added.
Narrowed down to the report by the
cfferdans for what was done by the
ktor examinations. The defendants
we're lahoring men as rule, not en-
inyCd hy LoeWe & Co, but living in
lfarby towns. In the question of re-
EonSbl.lty the justice said:
he court in substance instructed
ne Jury that if these members paid
Ner dues and continued to delegate
authority TO their officers unlawfully
" interfere with the plaintiff S inter-
Eate commerce in such circumstances
mat knew or ought to have known
and such officers were warranted in
Ne belief that they were acting IN
ne matters within their delegated au-
1Qrty then such members were joint
liable, and no others. 1t seems to
Is that this instruction sufficiently
guarded the defendants right and that
ne defendants got all that they were
entitled to ask in not being held
Aarseable with knowledge as mat
sr Of law.
is tax on credulity to ask anpy-
we 10 believe that members Of labor
l1ols at that time did not know that
ne primary AMI secondary boycott and
Ie Use Of the We don't patronize' or
mar list and other means expected
~ Ve employed In an effort to unionize
s~Ps' Very possibly they were thought
70 De lawful"
~ support Of the conclusion that
,-'uPeFs knew Of the use of these means
!, -iohlze shops, the justice referred
"e Hatters Union bylaw for strike
!, UNION label agitation funds and cited
-S Provision in the American Fedora
- " Labor constitution for prosecu
~ Vi hat II called lega, boycotts."
49, me words OF the documents on
J.. iaes and without explanation did
), @-tAofIze what was done" he con-
- me evidence of what was done
-! and hahitually shows their
r. '.'''s ana how they We're interpreted.
-. Jury could not but find that by the
o " the unions the acts complained
o. authorized and authorized with
ro,.. 'es1Fd 10 their Interference with
- -.'erce among the states"
ss,. ,uainases which, under the law
a., sAfee'old the injury suffered. were
\ - over the objection that some
a, +e'" accrued since the action be-