The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1916-09-11

and sustained the contentious of the law
yers of the Anti-Boycott association
which instigated suit against the hatters
in the name of the d. E. Loewe COM
pany, hat manufacturers of Danbury
Conn.
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
hich men sought to control and man
inipulate through trusts. This decision
threatened the very existence of vol
untary 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 employment.
Such activities of the workers were
by the decision of the supreme court
of the United States regarded as liable
to all the civil and criminal penal
ties under the antitrust laws of the
United States, In other words, the
Sherman antitrust law, enacted to curb
the stupidity and Vaccinations of the
combinations of wealthy owners was
to be applied to the voluntary organi-
zation of the workers instituted for
beneflcient purposes and the welfare
of human beings.
A BLOW AT LABOR
1.-THE decision in this case, which
is known as Loewe VS.. Lawlor, de-
clared that the damages in the case
were $4,000, which, under the provi-
sons Of the Sherman antitrust act,
were tripled and together with the
costs of the case and the interest made
a total sum of over 100000. which the
Danbury hatters must pay D. E. Loewe
& Co.
"Mr. Charles Evans Hughes was a
justice of the United States supreme
court at the time this decision was
rendered, and he concurred in the de-
cision.
THE last decision in this case, al
though 1t Is brief, reaffirms all that
the court declared in their 1908 opinion
There is another opinion of the United
States supreme court, written by Justice
Hughes, which throws light upon his at
titdue upon this principle, which is OF
fundamental Importance to the workers
of the country 1t is his opinion in the
case of TruaX VS.. Raich, a case which
involved the constitutonalty of the Ari-
iona antialien law Under that law al
employers of Arizona who employed more
than five workers were forbidden to en-
ploy less than so per cent who were
qualified electors or native born citizens
of the United States. In that decision
Justice Hughes took the position that the
njunctive process applied to personal re-
lations.
AN INJUNCTION JUDGE
Justice Hughes on that occasion ant
in that decision made more definite his
Endorsement of the theory that injunc
lions apply to personal relations.
Mr. Hughes has taken an unequvoca
position. He indorses the abuse of thu
writ of injunction against which wage
earners have vigorously protested, anC
which they have tried to correct b,
remedial legislation in order that the,
might enjoy the rights and opportunities
of free citizens.
| THE above is accurately the informa
! tion for which you asked and we TAX
| it that it will be of Importance to you
| as well as to the working people and lib
| erty loving citizens all over the coun
| try, in enabling them to understand tn
| mental attitude and the action of boil
| President Woodrow Wilson and Hon
! Charles Evans Hughes. who are now can
| didates for the presidency of the Unite'
| States.''