New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-10-15
LOUIS MARSHALL
UPHOLDS HUGHES
Calls Danbury Hatters
Decision Obligatory
on Justice
By LOUIS MARSHALL.

I desire to call attention to o recent
statement by Mr.. Samuel Gompers re-
garding the decision In tho so-called
Danbury matters case, and which COM
ments invidiously upon the psrticipa-
ton therein Of Mr.. Hughes az mem
Der Of the Supreme Court It Is
charged. In substance. that this de-
cision indicates him to be Zoe to
labor.
The injustice and unfairness OF such
an accusation are apparent at glance
The suit was brought by Loewe to re-
cover from the defendants treble dam
ages under the antitrust law Tor IN
juries which he claimed to have sui-
fered In consequence Of acts alleged TO
have been in restraint Of trade. Inc
case involved an Interpretation OF the
Sherman act The Supreme Court was
first called upon to consider the lunda-
mental legal propositions in December,
1907. 1t rendered its decision on FeD-
ruary 8, 1908, holding that the acts
charged constituted a violation OF the
antitrust law. The decision was unan-
imous. Mr.. Hughes was not, however,
at the time Of its rendition member
of the court, nor did he take his seat
on the bench until October 10, l9io'
more than two years and eight months
after the announcement OF the decision.
The law Of the case having been
established, the cause came on for
trial before q jury Of twelve
men In the United States District
Court in Connecticut A verdict was
rendered by the jury In favor OF
Loewe. The defendants appealed 70
the United States Circuit Court OF
Appeals, where the verdict Of the jury
was unanimously sustained. In the
opinion Of that court it was stated
that all Of the fundamental questions
Of law had been disposed Of on the
first appeal to the Supreme Court, and
that the applicability Of the antitrust
act to the facts proven was no longer
debatable.
Second Appeal Lost
A second appeal was then taken by
the defendants to the Supreme Court
of the United States, where a decision
affirming the lower courts was an
nounced on January 8, 1915. This was
likewise unanimous. Mr.. Hughes, who
was member of the court as then
constituted, united in the decision.
The court did not undertake to re-
consider the fundamental questions,
which had been conclusiyely decided
on the prior appeal.
The conclusion reached by the court
on the second appeal inevitably fol-
lowed from its prior decision. Exclu-
sive of Mr. Justice Hughes, thirteen
several justices of the highest court in
the land, besides three judges of the
Circuit Court of Appeals and the judge
of the district court, making in all sew
enteen judicial officers of the highest
rank, and in addition twelve jurors,
unanimously united, without any dis
sent whatsoever, in the various steps
which resulted in the final judgment
which has been thus criticised. So
far as Mr.. Hughes is concerned, IL was
impossible for him, without self-stulti-
fication, to do otherwise than to unite
in the decision rendered.
Attack Is Farreaching
The attack now made is not so much
upon him, who was but one Of thirty
judges and jurors who concurred in
the judicial proceedings which culmi-
mated in final judgment. as it is upon
all Of these thirty ministers Of justice,
upon our constitutional form of gov
eminent and upon the most elementary
concepts Of law, order and justice.
Those who are seeking TO penalize a
former judge. under these circum-
stances for observing his oath of Of
fee are substituting coercion and ter
rorism for due process of law, are I'M
dermining the very citadel Of our liber-
ties and are subverting the sanctity of