The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1916-09-15

To the Editor OF the lntelligencer.
SlR.-Mr. Gompers, president or the
American Federation Of Labor. at Lew
istor. Maine. on September 18th. gave rs
basis for his praise of President Will
son and his administration the passage
OF the so-called ciCht-hOur law. and de-
.nounced Mr. Hughes as al enemy TO
labor end gave as Il basis for his de-
nunciation. the participation by Justice
Hughes in Lawlor V. Loewe, 2S5 L. e.
522. a case commonly known. and so
designated by MIR. Gompcrs, as the
nd the Attorney General of Arizona VS..
Raich. 239 L. S. 33. a case commonly
known. and SO designated by Mr.. Com
pers. as the Arizona Anti-Alien Law
Case"
TIL. assumption by Mr.. Gompers or
anyone else that anything disclosed by
the record Of these cases as participated
in by Justice Hughes indicates in the
slightest degree any antaEonlSm 10
labor or oranizcd labor, or that any &C
ton part lei patinn or opinion OF Justice
Hughes in either of these cases, denied
or In any manner restricted any riSht
whatever of the labor interests, Is abSo-
lutely without foundation as disclosed
by the record of tho cases themselves.
Tn" n2nbury Hattcrs case was a SUIT
by a manufacturer against the members
of tho' United Hatters OF North America
a labor union. The suit was brought IN
1,
for the State OF Connecticut. for dam
ages under what Is known as the Sher-
man Antitrust Act, the compl'tlnt alIcs-
ing combination and conspiracy IN re-
straint Of commerce among the states.
\ demurrer TO the plaintiffs declara-
ton was sustained and writ or error
prosecuted TO the Circuit Court OF Ap-
pcals for the Second Circuit and mat
Court certified the following question
to the Supreme Court OF tho United
States. Upon this state of facts can
plaintiffs maintain an action against
defendants under Section I OF the Anti
Trust Act Of July ,. lS9O?
Justice Fuller's Opinion.
Eoth plaintiffs and defendants joined
in 4 request that the entire record OF
the case be sent to the Supreme Court
OF The United States, which was done.
and that Court was called upon to de-
eide the whole matter i'll controversy IN
the same manner as II II hau pecn
brought there for review by writ OF
| error or appeal The Supreme Court or
the United States. on February 8, 1905.
in an opinion written by the late Chief
Justice Fuller. e0S |. 5. "a. held that
! the Plaintiffs by their declaration or
complaint had made out a case within
the Antitrust Act, and that the demur-
rer should have been orcrrulcd. Inc
opinion is an elaborate review OF the
record. and in fact WAS tentamount 10 Il
decision OF the whole case except the
ages. The case was renamed and re-
trial commenced on It's merits on oct"-
Der is 1909. and continued to froruatE
4. 1910. when the court directed Ec,-
dict for the plaintiffs for $T4.QOO0U. and.
as directed By the Antitrust Law. TINS
amount was trebed. From this decision
! the dc PENDANTS appealed 10 Inc CIRCUIT
Court of Appeals. and that court re-
case for rev trial and denied petit
ton Tor rche airing 1S7 +. SIT. 10y y. Y;
\. 2SSJ. The plaintiffs then Appeared
10 tho Supreme Court OF the Cnitco
States for certiorari. which was dcnlco'
aaS L. S. 1928. The new trial was COM
menccd on August &c, 1912. and on Octo-
Der llth Of the same year verdict was
: rendered for the full amount demanded
trebleG From judgment on this Fc:
dict the defendant prosecuted writ ol
and that court confirmed the judgment
with costs. zoo F. TEL. 126 e. &. \. AS
(Dec. 1879. The Circuit Court OF APP
peals. in the opinion. ?o9 r: 1-9. Salq:
no one can examine this rolum!-
nous record without being impress
ed with the fact that the trial was
conducted with perfect importantly.
and with DETERMINATION on me
part Of the judge that both parties
should have an absolutely fair trial.
We are convinced that the defend
ants have had such trial. and that
no error was committed Whlcn
would Justify US in imposing upon
the parties the expense and delay OF
a third trial"
The Basic Decision
From this second judgment the de-
PENDANTS appealed to the Supreme Court
Of th.: United States: and in the opinion
rendered by Mr.. Justice Holmes upon
this appeal. Justice Hughes then a
member OF the Supreme Court. partici-
nnteI and there is no dissenting opin-
ion lon justice Holmes. In tho opinion.
saws saw that the grounds for discussion
under. the statute that we're not cut
swav by the decision upon the demurrer
60 hoon narrowed Gtill further by the
case case Of eastern. etc. Lumber Dealers tnG
Asso. V. United States. ga u. s. eoG.
From this statement In the opinion II
appears that the decision ana OPINION
Of chief Justice Fuller dlsposeo VI pt"I