The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1916-10-17
HUGHES RECORD RULE OF REASON
 IS C0NTRADICTED
His Labor Record Quite Ad verse to Statements on
 the Stump.

That Candidate Charles F. Hughes speeches in favor of the Rule Of req son" in court decisions affecting labor cases is fiatly contradicted by his rec ord on the bench, is, the charge made iii the Labor Standard (Hartford, October D in a signed article by Grant Hamilton.
 MT. Hamilton points out that when the Standard Oil Trust was indicted under the Antitrust act, the Su- preme Court read the rule of reason" into the decision and thereby saved the big trust from punishment.
 But when the Danbury Hatters were fighting before the Supreme Court, to preserve their little homes and savings, the rule of reason" vanish ed like the mist, in the adverse decis- ion rendered by the court. with Jus tice Charles Evans Hughes concurring.
 Here is the article as the Labor Standard gives it:
 (By Grant HamiltOn.)
 In the speeches of Candidate Hughes he has 'emphatically declared himself as committed to the rule of reason where labor questions are involved. In approaching this declaration he severely criticised President Wilson for the position taken in behalf of the eight-hour day on the transportation lines of the country, and asserted that there was a great necessity for a reign of reason in this country" Pur- suing his theme he said: Labor least of all can afford to surrender the rules of reason"
 Otter delivering these expressions he lauded himself "as friend of la bor," and concluded: 'I desire to say that the most vital interest that labor has in this country is in the settlement of controversies according to reason"
 The record of Justice of the Su- premei Court Hughes f1atly and un- equivocally contradicts the statements of Candidate Hughes.
 When the United States Supreme Court rendered it's decision in the Standard Oil case, involving the judi cial interpretation of the Sherman anti trust law and the Standard Oil Co. ju- dicially escaped the penalties provid- ed for violations of that law. Cor poration and vested interests were shielded from harm by the judicial
 
 amendment to the antitrust law.
 In 1914 the United States Court de- Hvered its final decision in the Dan- Hughes was then Justice Hughes and participated and /concurred in the de- cision rendered. Justice Hughes did not then apply his '.ru1e of reason to labor, as had formerly been applied by the same court when the Standard Oil Go. was involved, and offer dis senting opinion based on the former action of the court.
 On the contrary, Justice Hughes re- fused in the Danbury Hatters case to apply the rule of reason and concurred in the decision which strip pedl the wage earning matters to the number of over one hundred of their homes and their savings, the accumu- lations of their entire lives, and their savings, the accumulations of their entire lives, and left them penniless and in want, simply because these men were organized and had exer- cised their natural and normal rights to maintain a decent standard of liv- ing, and in doing so were engaged in an industrial dispute with the D. E. Loewe Co.
 Neither can Candidate Hughes es- cape responsibility by the assertion that he did not write the decision for Justice Harlan, some years age stated, during the course of an ad- dress:
 Thus, you will observe, not only is the utmost care taken to make the opinion express the views of the court but the final judgment rests, in every case decided, upon the examination by each member of the court of the record and briefs. Let me say that during my entire service in the Su- preme Court, I have not known sin gle instance in which the court has determined a case merely upon the report of one or more justices as to what was contained in the record and as to what questions were properly presented by jt.'
 Therefore, Candidate Hughes can- not evade full responsibility for his attitude as expressed in the Danbury Hatters' decision.