The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1916-09-09

humanity fH1a T.: -. .
"'Mr. Gompers was sfsterrifE lust
now to the sixth section Of the Clay
ton Antitrust law, the section In which
the obvious is stated, namely, that a
mans labor Is not a commodity, but
a. part Of his life. and that, therefore,
the courts must not treat it as If 1t
were a commodity, but must treat it
as If 1t were part of his life. I am
sorry that there were any Judges in
the United States who had to be told
that. It is so Obvious that it seems to
me that section Of the Clayton act
were return to the primer Of human
liberty; but IL 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 a clearer and more definite
pronouncement in behalf Of real, hui
man liberty than the above express
sion by President Woodrow Wilson on
July 4, 1916.
|, Justice Hughes Record.
you will 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.
1.-THE Danbury Hatters' case has an
historical place in labor's struggle for
freedom. It 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.4arners.'ii: r'-i: -: - 80;
THE. decision Of the court in this
case involved 4, principle OF funda-
mental inheritance to workers. It was
the same. principle Involved In. the
abuse Of the witt d. Injunction which,
under the perversion by Judges, who
had no understanding of industrial
conditions and the labor. Of human be-
ings, had .heen, transferred, into Ian
agency: at; the. service: of EN- ployers
who wished to restrict the industrial
freedom Of their employees and to pre-
vent their using legitimate methods OF
securing their demands and prornot.
ing their welfare.,> =: :::~:
THE theory upon which courts have
held that antitrust legislation applied
to associationtsc5sak,, -er 1:ners-> and
that injunctions fpu1d be used to regu-
late industrial relations, which are
personal relations, was the assump-
ton that the labor Of 2 human being
was an. Artic1e or q ,commodity and,
therefore,, property. This assumption
recognizes no distinction between the
creative labor power Of human be-
ing which is tnseparable from his nv
ing body and the articles which he
produceH~,.- -. .,,-~1 49, .,~ .-.t
I'm 1908 the Supreme Court Of the
United States rendered a decision in
the Hatters. case, when. the initial. ap-
peal wal, made. :, s,~~~,~. -. 49,.
I'm 1914 the United. States Supreme
Court delivered: their final decision in
the case and sustained the contentious
Of the; lawyers Of the anti-boycott- as
ISOLATION which instigated. suit, against
the matters in the name o. the D. E.
Loewe company; That manufacturers
Of Danbury, Conn.
1.-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 decisions Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States.
regarded as liable to ell the civil and
criminal penalties under the antitrust
laws of the United States: In other
words, the Sherman antitrust law, en-
acted to curb tho stupidity and ma
chinations Of the combinations =, Of
wealthy owners, WAS to be applied to
the voluntary organizations Of the
workers instituted for beneficent pur-
poses and the welfare Of human be-
ings. @'..-:
''The decision In this case. which is
known as Loewo vs. Lawlor, declared
that the damages in the case were
$4,000 which, under ntise provisions
of the Sherman antitrustk acte:were
tripled, together with sthd ocosts*of: the
case and the interesEsE shade a. total
sum Of over 100000, which the Dam
bury Hatters must pay D. E.. Loewe
and company.
''Mr. Charles Evans Hughes was a
justice of the United States supreme
court at the time this decision was
rendered, and he concurrcd In the de-
cision.
"The last decision in this case. al
though it il brief. reaffirms all that
the court declared in their 1908 opin-
ion.
There is another opinion Of the
United States supreme court, written
by Justice Hughes. which throws light
upon his attitude upon this principle.
which is OF fundamental tmportance
to the workers OF therc0 nntrysY..It is
his opinion til the case .of Truck W.:
Raich; a. case !which. involved the:con.
istitutionalit Of: the Arisona antt-alien