The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1916-09-15

the obvious is stated, namely, that a
part of his life, and that, therefore,
the courts must not treat it as if it
were a commodity, but must treat it
as if it were a part of his life. | am
sorry that there were any judges in
the United States who had to be told
that. 1t is so obvious that it seems
to me that that section of the Clayton
act were a return to the primer of
human liberty; but if judges have to
} have the primer opened before them, |
am willing to open it,
Students of history may search
wide and deep, they may spend many
years of keen research, and nowhere
in the pages of American history will
they find clearer and more definite
! pronouncement in behalf of real,
human liberty than the above ex-
preston by President Woodrow Will
son on July a, 1916.
Justice Hughes Record
You also ask for the record of the
| Honorable Charles Evans Hughes, re-
publican nominee for president, as to
labor measures, and particularly as to
! the Danbury Hatters' case.
The Danbury Hatters' case has an
historical place in labor's struggle for
freedom. 1t was in the course of the
trial of this case that the workers of
our country finally succeeded in Sc
curing a declaration from the highest
court of the land as to the application
of antitrust legislation to associations
of wage-earners
The decision of the court in this
case involved a principle of funda-
mental importance to workers. 1t was
the same principle involved in the
abuse of the writ of injunction which,
under the perverson by judges, who
had no understanding of industrial
conditions and the labor of human
beings, had been transformed into an
agency at the service of employers
who wished to restrict the industrial
freedom of their employees and to pre-
vent their using legitimate methods of
securing their demands and promoting
their welfare.
The theory upon which courts have
held that antitrust legislation applied
to associations of wage-earners and
that injunctions could be used to
regulate industrial relations which are
personal relations, was the assump-
ton that the labor of human being
was an article or a commodity and,
therefore, property. This assumption
recognizes no distinction between the
creative labor power of a human be-
ing which is inseparable from his liv-
ing body and the articles which he
produces.
In 1908 the Supreme Court of the
United States rendered a decision in
the Hatters' case when the initial ap-
peal was made.
In 1914 the United States Supreme
Court delivered their final decision in
the case and sustained the contentious
of the lawyers of the Anti-Boycott
Association which instigated suit
against the Hatters in the name of the
D. E. Loewe Company, hat manu-
facturers of Danbury, Connecticut
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 EN-
ployment. Such activities of the
workers were, 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
Vaccinations of the combinations of
wealthy owners, was to be applied to
the voluntary organization of the
workers instituted for beneficient pur-
poses and the welfare of human
beings.
| The decision in this case, which is
known as Loewe VS.. Lawlor, declared
that the damages in the case were
| 4. IT.. 4. Ill q