The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1916-09-15
AN EXTRAORDINARY ACTION
Employers Base Their Suits to Recov-
sr on the Belief That the Proceeding
is Similar to That Successfully
Waeed Against the Danbury Hatters.
Brief History OF the Latter Case.

is Similar to That Successfully
Waeed Against the Danbury Hatters.
Brief History OF the Latter Case.
The homes and bank accounts Of
forty members of local No. 10 of
the international Molders union,
Bridgeport, Conn. have been attached
by Deputy Sheriff T. j. Cunningham
as security against a possible judg
ment for 100000 against the union
and the members of 1t who have taken
prominent part in the recent foundry
strike there.
Every bank and trust company in
the city has been served with notice
that it must inform the sheriffs office
whether 1T has money or other prop
erty belonging to the union or to any
OF the members named in four suits
for $4,000 each by members Of the
Bridgeport Manufacturers association.
The New York World, discussing this
newest attempt to kill free labor says
editorially:
alleging damages of 100000 by rea
son Of strike and the picketing of
their plants, certain Bridgeport (Conn1
metal manufacturers have sued to re
cover from striking molders. They
have had attached the homes OF these
men and any other property belonging
to them which can be located, and 1t
is said that the suit IS based on the
Danbury hatters' case.
"This is an extraordinary action in
itself With the Danbury case for a
precedent, it is made all the more an
example OF capitalistlc arrogance That
case grew out Of a nation wide boycott
which came to be condemned as Il
conspiracy in restraint of interstate
trade under the federal antitrust law.
Threefold damages were then assessed
and collected by way OF punishment.
This case appears to be wholly
local There has been no prosecution
or judgment for unlawful conspiracy
1t relates TO a strike which Is lawful
and as remote as anything can be
from the condemnations Of the Dan
bury case. 1t relates at the worst to
picketing, which was either lawful or
unlawful under state law. If unlawful
it should have been dealt with at the
time as criminal, and If direct dam
ages arose from failure to suppress II
suit for recovery would evidently lie
against the city rather than against
the criminals
"If the homes of strikers or peace
full picketers can be attached for any
resulting losses to the employer, then
labor ccaS"s 10 lie free. 1t become,
slave Is this the issue In Bridgeport
The Danbury Hatters Case Recalled.
The final decision IN the Danbury
hatters case was rendered by the
United States supreme court Jan. 5
1915. The court held that the hatter>
who struck in July, 1902 must pay
$252, 600 damages.
The suit was brought by Deitrick +
Toewe & Co. at Bridgeport In august
1902 The strike and boycott took
place in July of that year The amount
originally asked for was SS00c0, bu
the Sherman law awards triple dam
ages In case of a verdict for the plain
tiff.
On April %, 1919. Loewe < Co. by
publication in the Bridgeport papers
notified the hatters that unless the
Judgment was satisfied the company
would begin foreclosure of attachment,
on the personal property of the strik
ers
The United Hatters of North Ameri
ca In convention in New York May %
1918 refused to devote any part o
It's funds to pay the judgment. hut l
pledged an assessment OF per cen
on the weekly earnings of the mem
bers to help the 1SG hatters upon whom
the Judgment fell.
The American Federation of Laho
had earlier announced it would not pa.
the Judgment Fifty of the origina
strikers had died during the litigation
leaving additional burden on the re
naming 1S6.
Early this year, however, Presiden
Samuel Gompers designated Jan 2
as "hatters' day" and called upon a
Of the 100000 members of the fed
Grafton to turn over one hours pay {
help the hatters. The appeal pro
duced S132, 1885. A second hatters
day was set for June II. The amour
raised then has not been made known