Denver labor bulletin., 1916-09-23
Why the Workers of the Nation
sWon't Vote for Justice Hughes
JIM BARRY. in San Francisco Star

Charles Z. Hughes may or may not
have opinions on the real issues of the
day - his clam-like silence on such ac-
complishments of the Wilson administra
tion as the federal reserve banks, the
rural credits act, the child labor measure,
and other history making achievements,
is not revealing, even tho 1t is in
measure illuminating but his record as
a justice of the supreme court Is 50
clearly favorable to the interests and
against the welfare of the working
masses tina. it need only be known to
carry conviction AZ ...s-
That the large corporations. trusts,
banking combinations. and big business
generally, recognize Hughes as their very
own by inclination, association and train
ing, is evident from their expressions OF
entire satisfaction in his candidacy, and
their confidence that their interests will
be safe in his sane" hands. But the
working men and women are not willing
to accept the Endorsement of big business
and will reject Hughes on the record he
has made, and for the very reasons that
make him so acceptable to the interests.
Let us SEQ Just what Justice Charles
f. Hughes did for, or to, the wage Garner
when he had the power to choose be-
tween humanity, equity and justice to
the weak, or oppression and injustice In
favor of the powerful by a strained in
terpretation of the statute law.
Danbury Hatters' Decision.
The first and most notorious decision
in the minds of the wage earners, be-
cause it directly affected their most
cherished rights and threatened them
with the confiscation OF all their savings
and investments and the taking from
their families of their homes and COM
forts, was what is known as the Dan
bury Hatters' decision. The fact that
Hughes concurred in this heartless de-
cision is convincing evidence that sym
pathy and consideration for the plain
people are not conspicuous attributes OF
the Republican presidential candidate.
For that decision robbed many a family
of home and the savings of lifetime
to satisfy a Judgment, not for actual
damages, but threefold damages alleged
to have been sustained by boycott
against firm of hat manufacturers.
To those who have forgotten the cir
cumstances, it msy be explained that
this case against the Danbury Hatters
Union was brought under the Sherman
law "a law clearly designed to curb
combinations of capital, and never in
tended by the trainers or the congress
that passed it to be applied to organi-
zations of wage earners. This law, for
the curbing of Combinations in restraint
of trade" was invoked to punish men
whose dire offense was requesting their
fellows to refrain from purchasing hats
not made by members of their union.
Under the law several abortive at
tempts to break up combinations of cap
ital mad been followed by immense bene-
fit to the interests prosecuted as in
the case of Standard Oil and American
Tobacco, the stocks of which had become
much more valuable because of the ac-
tion of the court in "dissolving" them
but in no case had any individual been
fined or his personal property attached.
Could Seize Their Homes.
Applied to the hatters, however, the
law as interpreted by the supreme court
Justice Hughes concurring-mcant that
labor must give up its most effective
weapon, the boycott; that every individ-
ual member of any trades union could
be held personally responsible for the
acts of his organization; and that all
his personal belongings, including his
home and bank savings, could be taken
from him to pay, three times over, the
| adjudged damages to the business of a
manufacturer who claimed that he had
been damaged by public notice that he
was involved in dispute with his en-
ployes.
This case was fought for fifteen years,
and when it was finally decided against