The Gem worker and the Idaho labor herald. (Boise, Idaho) 1914-1917, 1916-09-07

in the case and sustained the con-
tentions OF the lawyers of the Anti
Boycott Association which nstigat-
ed suit against the Hatters in the
name of the d. F. Loewe Company,
hat manufacturers of Danbury, Con-
necticut.
The court sustained the position
that the Sherman Antitrust law ap.
Piled to the personal attributes and
normal activities of human beings
They held to the theory that there
was no distinction between the labor
power of human beings on the one
hand and articles or commodities on
the other-articles or commodities
which men sought TO control and
manipulate through trusts. This de-
cision threatened the very existence
of voluntary associated effort-the
effort of the organized workers to
carry out the normal purposes for
which they were organized; that is,
to improve standards of life and work
wages. hours and conditions of em-
ployment. Such activities of the
workers we're, by the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States,
regarded as liable to all the civil and
criminal penalties under the Antitrust
laws Of the United States. In other
words, the Sherman Antitrust law,
enacted to curb the stupidity and ma
chinations of the combinations of
wealthy owners, was to be applied to
the voluntarily organization of the
workers instituted for bene6cient pur-
poses and the welfare of human be-
ings.
The decision in this case, which is
known as Loewe VS.. Lawlor, declared
that the damages in the case were
$4,000 which. under the provisions
of the Sherman Antitrust Act were
tripled, and together with the costs
of the case and the interest, made
total sum of over 100000, which the
Danbury Hatters must pay d. f.
Loewe and Company.
Mr. Charles Evans Hughes was a
Justice of the United States Supreme
Court at the time this decision was
rendered, and he coucurred i'll the de-
cision.
The last decision in this case, al
though it is brief. reaffrms all that
the Court declared in their 1908 opin
ion
There is another opinion OF the
United States Supreme Court written
by Justice Hughes, which throws light
upon his attitude upon this principle,
which is of fundamental importance
to the workers of the country. 1t is
his opinion in the case of Truax VS..
Raieh. case which involved the con-
stitutionality of the Arizona anti
alien law Under that law all en-
ployers of Arizona who employed
more than five workers we're forbid
den to employ less than so per cent
who were qualified electors or native
born citizens of the United States.
In that decision Justice Hughes took
the position that the injunetive pro-
cess applied to personal relations.
Justice Hughes on that occasion
and in that decision made more def
mite his endorsement of the theory
that injunctions apply to personal re-
lations.
Mr.. Hughes has taken an unequiv-
ocal position. He endorses the abuse
of the writ OF injunction against
which wage-earners have vigorously
protested. and which they have tried
to correct by remedial legislation in
order that they might enjoy the
rights and opportunities of free citi-
zens.
The above is accurately the infor-
lmation for which you asked and we
take it that it will be of importance
to you, as well as to the working
people and iiberty-loving citizens all
over the country, in enabling them to
understand the mental attitude and
the action OF both President Wilson
and Honorable Charles Evans
Hughes who are now candidates for
the Presidency OF the United States.
Fraternal1y yours,
SAMUEL GOMPERS,
President
JAS. O'CONNELL,
President
FRANK MORRISON, Secretary
Labor Representation Committee
American Federation az Labor