Arizona republican., 1915-01-06
SAY BOYCOTT 0F
 EATERS BROKE
 ANTITRUST LAW
Famous .'Danburv Hat ters' Case, In Court II Years, Ends When Su- premc Court Holds 2OG Union Men Responsible.
ASSOCIATED PRESS D1sPArcH1

ASSOt AIED llf-SS DlSfAI0H
 WASHINGTON, Jan. The ban bury matters case, in court eleven years ended when the supreme court held that some 200 labor union mem bers must pay $252,130.09 damages under the sherman antitrust law for a national boycott of the D. N. LoeWe company of Danbury, Conn.,, hat manufacturers who refused to unionize their shops. The bank ac- counts and homes of many of the men are already under attachment. and the next step probably will be foreclosure to pay the judgment.
 Leading leWYcrs of congress dis agreed on whether this meant that dnion workmen would be liable in the future on account of boycotts. Some hold the Clayton antitrust law passed after the hatters' case tried to make such prosecution impossi- bic, It was in the Danbury hattera case that the supreme court decided in 1908 that labor unions were sub
 iect to the terms of the sherman antitrust law
 Justice Holmes announcing the unanimous decision of the court said:
 "It requires more than blindness of justice not to see that many branches of the United Hatters. and he American Federation of Labor, in pursuance of plan emanating from headquarters made use of the unfair dealers lists of the primary and sec ondary boycott in an effort to subdue the plaintiffs to their demands Justice Holmes announced the courts unanimous opinion today His decision of the law involved WAS brief. He said the ground for de- cision under the sherman law had been cut away by the decision to a large extent and narrowed further bv the decision in he Eastern States 1 Reail 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 q body of possible consumers. combined with a view of i joint action. was violation uf the sherman antitrust law.
 The Justice pointed out that the defendants were some 200 members
 of both the United IIatters Of North America and of the American Feder- alton of Labor With brief consider ation he arrived at the conclusion that the New York federal court which tried the cases was right iu holding that forbidden combination
 had been proved
 on the question of the responsibili- ty the Justice said:
 The court in substance instructed
 the jury that if these members paid
 their dues and continued to delegate 1 authority 10 their officers unlaWfuily to interfere with the plaintiffs in-
 terstate commerce in such eircum-
 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
 members were jointly liable and no
 others. It seems to us that this ln-
 struction sufficiently guarded the de- | fendant's rights and that the defen- dants got all that they were entitled 1 to ask in not being held chargeable 1 with knowledge as matter of law Tt is tax on credulity to ask any one to believe that members Of | labor unions at that time did not 1 know that the primary ana secohuarN
 hoycott and the use Of the we don
 patronize or unfair list were meahs i expected to be employed in the CT i fort to unionize shops. Very possibly
 thev were thought to be lawful.