The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1916-10-06
"RULE OF REASON"
Makes Some Difference When AppIi-
cation Is Made to Labor
By Grant Hamilton.

|
In the speeches of Candidate
Hughes he has emphatically declared
himself as committed to the rule of
reason where labor questions are in
volved. In approaching this declara-
ton he severely criticised President
Wilson for the position taken in be-
half of the eight-hour day on the
| transportation lines of the country,
and asserted that there was a great
necessity. for reign of reaon in this
country" Pursuing his theme he said:
Labor least of all can afford to sur
render the rules of reason"
After delivering these expressions
he lauded himself "as a friend of la
bor' and concluded: 81 desire to say
that the most vital interest that labor
has in this country is in the settle
ment of controversies according to
reason"
The record of Justice of the Su-
preme Court Hughes flatly and un-
equivocally contradicts the state
ments of Candidate Hughes.
When the United States Supreme
Court rendered it's decision in the
Standard Oil case, involving the
judicial Interpretation of the Sherman
antitrust law, the rule of reason"
was read into the Sherman antitrust
law and the Standard Oil Company
judicially escaped the penalties pro-
vided for violations of that law Cor
porat;on and vested interests were
shielded from harm by the judicial
Interpretation, or rather judicial
amendment to the antitrust law.
In 1914 the United States Supreme
Court delivered it's final decision in
! the Danbury Hatters case, and Candi-
date Hughes was then Justice Hughes
and participated and concurred in the
decision rendered. Justice Hughes
did not then apply his rule of rea-
son" to labor, as had formerly been
applied by the same court when the
Standard Oil Company was involved,
and offer a dissenting opinion based
on the former action of the court.
On the contrary, Justice Hughes re-
fused in the Danbury Hatters case to
apply the rule of reason" and con-
Cured in the decision which stripped
the wage earning hatters to the num-
ber of over one hundred of their
homes and their savings, the accumu-
lations of their entire lives, and left
them penniless and in want, simply
because these men were organized and
had exercised their natural and nor
NAL rights to matain a decent stand
ard of living, and in doing so were
engaged in an industrial dispute with
the d, e, Loewe Company.
Neither can Candidate Hughes
escape responsibility by the assertion
that he did not write the decision, for
Justice Harlan, some years ago
stated, during the course of an ad
dress:
Thus, you will observe, not only is
the utmost care taken to make the
opinion express the views of the court,
but the final judgment rests, in every
case decided, upon the examination by
each member of the court of the
record and briefs. Let me say that,
during my entire service in the Su-
preme Court, | have not known a !
single instance in which the court has
determined a case merely upon the
report of one or more justices as to
what was contained in the record and
as to what questions We're properly
presented by it,"
Therefore Candidate Hughes can
not evade full responsibility for his
attitude as expressed in the Danbury
Hatters decision.