The labor advocate. [volume] (Cincinnati, Ohio) 1912-1937, 1916-09-02
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
IAROR.
CONTINUED from page 2)

LABOR.
Continued from page p
hatters in the name of the ID. L. Loewe
Company, hat manufacturers of Dan
bury, Connecticut
The court sustained the position that
the Sherman Antitrust law applied to
the personal attributes and normal actvi-
ties of human beings. They held to the
theory that there was no distinction be-
tween the labor power of human beings
on the one hand and articles or com
modities on the other-articles of COM
modities which men sought to control
and manipulate through trusts. This de-
cision threatened the very existence of
of the organized workers to carry out
were organized; that is, to improve
standards of life and work, wages, hours
and conditions of employment. 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 work.
ers instituted for beneficent purposes and
the welfare of human beings.
The decision in this case, which is
known as Loewe VS.. Lawlor, declared
that the damages were $SO,O00 which,
under the provisions of the Sherman
Antitrust Act were tripled, and together
with the costs of the case and the inter-
est, made total sum of over 100000,
which the Danbury Hatters must pay D.
E. Loewe and Company.
Mr.. Charles Evans Hughes was JUS
tice of the United States Supreme Court
at the time this decision was rendered.
and he concurred in the decision
The last decision in this case, al
though it is brief reaffirms all that the
Court declared in their 1908 opinion.
There is another opinion of the United
States Supreme Court, written by JUS
tice Hughes, which throws light upon his
attitude upon this principle, which is of
fundamental Importance to the work
ers of the country. 1t is his opinion in
the case of Truax VS.. Raich, a case which
involved the constitutionality of the
Arizona anti-alien law. Under that law
all employers of Arizona who employed
more than five workers were forbidden
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
injunctive process applied to personal
relations.
Justice Hughes on that occasion and
in that decision made more definite his
endorsement of the theory that injunc-
tions apply to personal relations.
Mr.. Hughes has taken an unequivocal
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 citizens
The above is accurately the informa-
tion for which you asked and we take
it that it will be of Importance to you
as well as to the working people and
liberty-loving citizens all over the coun-
try, in enabling them to understand the
mental attitude and the action of both
both President Woodrow Wilson and
Honorable Charles Evans Hughes who
are now candidates for the Presidency
of the United States.
Fraternally yours,
SAM'L GoMPERs,
President
JAS. O'CoNNELL,
Vice-President.
FRANK MORRISON,