The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1916-10-06
"RULE OF REASON"
Makes Some Difference When Ap-
pliCdtiOn Is Made To Labor.
By Grant Hamilton

BY Grant Hamilton
In the speeches of Candidate
Hughes he has emphatically de-
clared himself as committed TO the
rule of reason where labor ques-
tions are involved. In approach
ing this declaration he severely
criticised President Wilson for the
position taken in behalf of the
eight-hour day on the transporta-
ton lines Of the country, and as
serted that there was a great nee
essity for a reign of reason in this
country /" Pursuing his theme he
said: Labor 4east Of all can af
ford TO surrender the rules of rea-
son.
After delivering these expires
sions he Landed himself as friend
of labor, and concluded: Il de-
sire to say that the most vital in
terest that labor has in this conn
try is in the settlement of contro
versies according to reason.
The record of Justice of the Su-
preme Court Hughes fatty and
unequivically contradicts the state
ments of Candidate Hughes.
When the United States Supreme
Court rendered its decision in the
Standard Oil case, involving the
judicial Interpretation of the Sher
man antitrust law, the rule OF
reason" was read into the Sherman
anti trust law and the Standard
Oil company judicially escaped the
penalties provided for violations Of
that law. Corporation and vested
interests were shielded from har N
by the judicial Interpretation, CT
rather judicial amendment to the
antitrust law
In 1914 the Unned States Su
preme Court delivered its FINAL de
cision in the Danbury Hatters case,
and Candidate Hughes was then
Justice Hughes and participated
and concurred in the decision rem
dersd. Justice Hughes did not
then apply his rule Of reason to
labor, as had formerly been ap
piled by the same g urt when the
Standard Oil Company was in
volved, and offer a dissenting opin-
ion ased On the former acton Of
the court.
On the contrary Justice HI ghes
refused in the DAM ury Hauels
case to appI5 the rule Of reason,
and conourred in the decision
which stripped the wage earning
hatters to the number of over one
hundred Of their homes and their
savings, the accumulatious Of their
entire lives, and left them pennies
and in want, simply because these
men were organized and had exer-
cised their natural and normal
lights to maintain a dec 7rt standard
Of living, and in doing SO were en-
gagged III an industrial dispute with
he D + Loewe company.
Neither can Candidate Hughes
escape responsibility by the asser-
ion that he did not write the deci-
sion, for justice Harlan, some
years ago stated, during the course
of an address;
Thus, you will observe, not
only is the utmost care taken to
make the opinioa express the views
ot 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 Supreme
Court, ] have not known a single
instance in which the court has de-
termiued case merely upon the
report Of one or more justices as to
what was contained in the record
and as 70 what questions were pro-
peily presented by it.
Therefore Candidate Hughes
cannot evade full responsibility for
his attitude as expressed in the
Danbury Halter S decision.