The sun., 1916-10-15
LABOR ATTACK ON
h HUGHES Is BLASTED
huis Marshall. Shows Injus-
4 ,tice Of Criticism in Dan
e. bury Hatters' Case.
ROSY OUTLOOK IN WEST
Henry J. Allen Says 80 Per
/; Cent. of Progrcssivcs Arc
! for G. 0. p. Candidate.

III -
. The sction OF Charles r. Hughes in
: uniting with his colleagues of the su-
preme Court In affirming the decision Of
the lower courts In the Danbury hatters'
ease was defended yesterday by Louis
Marshall. the well known lawyer. Not
only did Mr.. Marshall, In a statement is-
sued on tho subject. insist that i, was
both unjust and and unfair to point to
Mr.. Hughes's action In the matter as in
dicating that he was a foe Of labor but
he also maintained that such attacks
weIe In effect attacks on our form Of
government and the most elementary
concepts Of law.
: The Danbury hatters' decision has fire.
qusntly confronted Mr.. Hughes on his
campaign trips, especially when he has
visited industrial towns. In fact the
peFsistence Of the attempts to heckie him
on the subject has led to an impression
that they have been organized. In the
speeches he is making for Mr.. Wilson
Samuel Gompers has invariably pointed
to this case as indicating the Republican
candidates hostility to labor.
Marshall Explains.
Referring to this Mr.. Marshall says.
"The injustice and u%nfairness of such
an accusation are apparent at n glance.
The suit was brought by Loewe to re-
cover from the defendants treble dam
ages under the antitrust law. for injuries
which he claimed to " suffered In on
sequence OF acts alleged to have been in
restraint Of trade The case involved an
Interpretation Of the Sherman act. The
Supreme Court was first called upon to
consider the fundamental legal PROPOSE
lions In December. 1907. It rendered Its
decision on February 3. 1908. holding
that the acts charged constituted q viola
ton Of the antitrust law. The decision
was unanimous. Mr.. Hughes was not.
however. NJ the time q It's rendition a
Uamber of the court. nor did he a his
80 on the bench until October 10. 1910.
l01RS than two years. and eight months
i3k6r the announcement Of the decision.
.S.rhe law Of the case having been e.
taSlshed, the case came on for trial be-
10lV q jury Of twelve men in the United
Gass District Court In Connecticut. A
yysaiot was rendered by h jury In
ysosed to the United States Circuit Court
HsAppeals. whore the verdict Of the
NV was unAnineusly sustained. In the
\v301on Of that aourt It was stated that
GI1-of the fun1aneatal questions Of law
- been disposed q % the fnt appeal
ta.0e Supreme 0ouFty onl that the APP
liability OF - aA9-esast. Get to the
6cts proven ~ Nd 1qngsP aSaatablA.
- second aVpeal VS. -tAsa taken BY
~o.defendants d ne supreme Court OF
eHrUnited 60tes. where . decision AZ
Sing the lower courts was announced
drsSanuary 8. 1915. This was likewise
VE3himous. Mr.. Hughes, who was Q
usNber OF the court a. then constituted.
Votted In thA decision. The court did
~ undertake 10 reconsider the funda-
nal questions Wt1ch had been con.
6n1lvsly decided ON ths prior aSpsal
asaa.y csasus .. cs.siusis..
the conclusion reached BY the court
On tho second appeal Inevitably followed
from Its prior decision. Exclusive Of Mr..
Justice Hughes. thirteen several Justices
Of the highest court in the land. be-
sides three Judges Of the Circuit Court
81 Appeals and the Judge Of the District
Court. making in all seventeen judicial
ofhcers OF the highest rank. and In ad-
dition twelve Jurors. unanimously
united. without any dissent whatsoever,
In the various steps which resulted in
the final judgment which has been thus
criticised. SO far as Mr.. Hughes is con-
cerned. 1t was impossible for him. with
out decentralization. to do otherwise
man 10 unite In the decision rendered.
THE attack now made Is not 30 much
upon him.. who was but one u thirty
Judges and Jurors who concurred In the
judicial proceedings which eliminated In
hnal judgment. as It is upon all OF these
thirty ministers Of Justice. uron our CON
ftitutional form of government and upon
the most elementary concepts Of law,
order and Justice. Those who are seek
Ing to pcnalize n former Judge under
these circumstances for observing his
oath OF office are substituting coercion
and terrorism for due process Of law,
are undermining the very citadel OF our
liberties and are subverting the sanc,ity
OF the law on which free government
must depend by the arbitrary behests OF
IR~wleseness. which. " observed, viii In
evitably lead TO despotism.
"The record OF Mr.. Hughes shows
that, far from being a foe of labor, he
has been Its consistent champion. and
that he has strlven to dignity II and to
protect II from injustice and exploita-
ton. lie Is not an eleventh hour con-
vert. His utterances concerning II have
been consistent throughout his public
life and his achievements In Its behalf
will MOI soon he forgotten"
Henry ]. Allen OF Kansas. one Of the
leaders among the Western Progresslves
now on the stump for Hughes. passed
through here yesterday en- route from
New Jersey to Ohio. Mr.. Allen has
spoken in Kansas. Nebraska. Illinois,
Michigan. Indiana ard New Jersey. lie
said yesterday there was M question
IN all OF these states would go for
Hughes.
Rosy Outlook for Hughes.
'The Democrats may say what they
please" said Mr.. Allen, but the fact Is
that 90 per cent. OF the irogressivcs OF
the country are now for Mr.. Hughes, I
have had convincing evidence OF this.
In Missouri 1t may fan to 9s per cent.
due to the fact that Mr., Nortoni II
working for Wilson there. Nebraska
is just as surely Republican as my w
State of Kansas. Everywhere the farm
ers are almost solid for Hughes.
Omaha Is the Democratic centre In
Nebraska, and there It will he an even
break. Bryan Is making virtually no
campaign in his W State OF account
Of his feeling against Senator Hitch
cock. The Republicans will carry Ne
braska easily II elect Senator Hitch
cocks successor. Indiana from end to
end Is full OF Republican torchlight pa
rades. There was never anything like
h Republican campaign aeen there. The
Democrats are merely trying TO do the