Denver labor bulletin., 1916-08-26

IL response to q request Tor lnforma-
tio1, President Samuel Gompers of the
american Federation of Labor has given
the record of Charles Evans Hughes, Re-
publican candidate for President, while
OF the United States Supreme Court
bench Gompers wrote a letter to the
various state and city central bodies in
which the anti-labor record OF Hughes is
made clear, as follows:
'Your letter of recent date, asking for
the record of Hon. Charles E. Hughes,
nominee OF the Republican party for
President, in regard to labor matters
and particularly as to the famous Dan
bury Hatters' case, was received.
'The Danbury Hatters' case has an
historical place in labor's struggle for
freedom. 1t was in the course of the
trial of this case that the workers of our
country finally succeeded in securing a
declaration from the highest court of the
land as to the application of antitrust
legislation to associations of wage-earn-
ers.
9erversion of Judges.
THE decision of the court in this case
involved principle OF fundamental i'm
portance to workers. 1t was the same
principle involved in the abuse of the
writ OF injunction which, under the per-
version of Judges, who had no under
standing OF industrial conditions and
the labor of human beings. had been
transformed into an agency at the serv-
ice of employers who wished to restrict
the industrial freedom OF their employees
and to prevent their using legitimate
methods of securing their demands and
promoting their welfare.
"The theory upon which courts have
held that antitrust legislation applied
to associations of wage-eaners and that
injmctions could be used to regulate in
dustrial relations, which are personal re-
lations, was the assumption that the la
Dor of a human being was an article or
a commodity, and therefore, property.
This assumption recognizes no distinction
between the creative labor power of a
human being which is inseparable from
his living body and the articles which he
produces.
Against Danbury Hatters.
I'm 1905 the Supreme Court of the
United States rendered decision in the
Hatters' case when the initial appeal was
made.
"In 1914 the United States delivered
its final decision in the case and sus-
tanned the contentious of the lawyers of
the Anti-boycott Association which insti-
gated suit against the Hatters in the
name of the D. +. Lowe Company,
hat manufacturers of Danbury, Conn.
"1he court sustained the position that
the Sherman antitrust law applied to
the personal attributes and normal activ-
tiles of human beings. 1t held to the
theory that there was no distinction be-
tween the labor power of human beings
bon I'd nj Nl
tiles on the other--articles or commodi-
ties which men sought to control and
manipulate thru trusts.
Existence of Unions Threatened.
This decision threatened the very ex-
istence of voluntary associated effort
the effort of organized workers to carry
out the normal purposes for which they
were organized, that is, to improve stand.
ards of life and work, wages, hours and
conditions of employment. Such activi-
ties of the workers were, by the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United
States, regarded as liable to all the civil
and criminal penalties under the anti
trust laws of the United States. In 9TH
er words, the Sherman antitrust law
enacted to curb the cupidity and machin-
ations of the combinations of wealthy
owners, was to be applied to the volun'
tary organization of the workers insti.
tuted for the beneficient purposes and
the welfare of human beings.
Cost the Unions S3oo,ooo.
"The decision in this case, which is
known as Lawlor VS.. Loewe, declared
that the damages in the case were $780,,
900, which, under the provisions of the
Sherman antitrust act, were tripled and
together with the costs of the case and
the interest, made total sum of ovel
100000, which the Danbury hatters
must pay D. E. Loewe & company.
'CMr. Charles f. Hughes was justice
of the United States Supreme Court al
the time this decision was rendered, ant
he concurred in the decision.
THE last decision in this case, althc