The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1916-10-12
HUGHES EXPLAINS
DANBURY HAT CASE
Tells Audience He Will En-
force the Law Without
Fear or Favor.
Especial Dispatch to west vlrgInian)

NEW YORK, Oct. 12.-Charies E.
Hughes aroused great enthusiasm in
his Philadelphia meeting when he told
his audience that II elected to the
Presidency he could be relied upon to
enforce the laws, without regard to
whether the question was raised by
labor or capital. He added that II the
laws were not right the remedy was
to change them. This statement was
made In the course OF Mr.. Hughes re-
ply to question from the audience
as to the Danbury hatters' case. Mr..
Hughes said:
THE Danbury hatters' case was a
case decided by the Supreme Court OF
the United States. of which I was a
member. The decision was unanim-
GUS one and. as that statement i'm
plies. ! concurred In 1t. did my duty
as Judge, enforcing the laws OF the
land. Now what was this case? There
was manufacturer who said that he
suffered in his business through what
Is known as secondary boycott; that
there was an association OF working.
men who. through their officers, had
destroyed his business. He brought
a suit In the Federal court to recover
treble damages under the Sherman
Antitrust act. The first question pre-.
scented was whether on his own state.
ment, he had made out case. That
went to the Supreme Court OF the
United States long before | was a
member OF II. and the court decided
that IL what he said was true he had
made out case. Then 1t was for
him to prove his case. He went back
to trial. The case was tried before
Judge and jury. The facts were
submitted to the jury. and the jury
found In his favor. Then there was
an appeal taken to the Supreme Court
! OF the United States. At that time I
was member OF the court. The ques.
ton on that appeal was not question
OF fact. The facts were determined
by the jury, were within the province
OF the Jury. The question for the court
was whether the trial Judge had er.
red in submitting the question to the
jury. In substance the question was
whether members OF an association
Of that sort were responsible for the
acts Of their officers. II upon the evi.
dence they could be charged with
knowledge OF this acts. That is n
rather simple proposition in the law
OF agency. that men are responsible
for those whom employ or direct. The
question whether the men knew, the
question whether or not they had op.
portunities for information as to what
was going on SO that 1t was a case
properly submitted to the jury was
matter Of consideration. The court
found that there was evidence enough
to go to the jury, and II was a uues.
ton for the jury what the fact was
and therefore. the judgment was un.
animously affirmed.
THAT is all there Is OF II. Now
stand here to say that. whether as
Judge. or II elected as a President, on
any question coming before me shall
enforce the laws OF the land. And Il
makes no difference whether the cues.
ton Is raised by labor or raised by
capital. II laws are not right the rem.
edy Is to change them. This is a
free government. II Is the business
of judges to enforce the laws as they
are. And SO far as | have anything
to say further on the subject, | will
say this to my friends the working.
meh-for my record in New York is
we'll known. And organized labor in
their journal. when I left the COVER.
norship to go on the bench paid me
the compliments Of saying that was
the best friend Of labor laws that ever
sat In the executive chair at Albany.
They pointed out that there had been
only $50 labor laws. think. passed
In the entire history of the state. 1913
years, and that more than one-third
OF them had been passed during by
term Of three years and nine months.
And they said they were the best labor
laws ever enacted upon the statue
books Of New York state. II we're
to sum up In sentence what would
like to say to the laboring men of the
country. 1t is this. that the best friend
Of labor is the friend of Justice"