Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1916-10-30
The Danbury Hatters' Case


! desire to call attention to recent state
ment by Samuel Gompers regarding the decision
in the so-called Danbury Hatters case, and which
comments invidiously upon the participation
therein OF Mr.. Hughes as member OF the su-
preme court 1t is charged in substance, that
this decision indicates him to be a foe OF labor.
The injustice and unfairness of such an accu-
saton are apparent at glance. The suit was
brought by Loewe, to recover from the defend
ants treble damages under the antitrust law for
injuries which he claimed to have suffered in con-
sequence of acts alleged to have been in restraint
of trade. The case involed an Interpretation of
the Sherman act The supreme court was first
called upon to consider the fundamental legal
propositions in December, 1907. 1t rendered its
decision on February g. 1908 holding that the acts
charged constituted violation of the antitrust
law. The decision was unanimous. Mr.. Hughes
was not however, at the time of its rendition, a
member of the court, nor did he take his seat on
the bench until October 10, 1910 more than two
years and eight months after the announcement
OF the decision.
The law of the case having been established,
the cause came on for trial before jury OF twelve
men in the United States district court in Con-
nectcut. verdict was rendered by the jury in
favor of Loewe The defendants appealed to the
United States circuit court of appeals, where the
verdict OF the jury was unanimously sustained.
In the opinion Of that court it was stated that
all Of the fundamental questions of law had been
disposed Of on the first appeal to the supreme
court, and that the applicability of the antitrust
act to the facts proven was no longer debatable.
second appeal was then taken by the de-
PENDANTS to the supreme court of the United
States, where a decision affirming the lower
courts was announced on January 5, 1915. This
was likewise unanimous. Mr.. Hughes, who was a
member of the court as then constituted, united
in the decision. The court did not undertake to
reconsider the fundamental questions, which had
been conclusively decided on the prior appeal.
The conclusion reached by the court on the
second appeal inevitably followed from its prior
decision. Exclusive of Mr.. Justice Hughes, thir-
land, besides three judges Of the circuit court of
appeals and the judge of the district court max
ing in all seventeen judicial officers of the high
est rank, and in addition twelve jurors, unani-
mousy 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 concerned, it was mpos-
sible for him, without disqualification, to do
otherwise than to unite in the decision rendered.
The attack now made is not so much upon
who concurred in the judicial proceedings, which
eliminated in final judgment as it is upon all of
these thirty ministers Of justice upon our con-
stitutonal form of government, and upon the
most elementary concepts OF law, order and
justice. Those who are seeking to penalize a
former judge, under these circumstances for OBJ
serving his oath of office, are substituting
coercion and terrorism for due process of law,
are undermining every citadel of our liberties,
and are subverting the sanctity Of the law on
which free government must depend, by the ar
btrary behests Of lawlessness, which, if OBJ
served, will inevitably lead to despotism.
The record of Mr. Hughes shows that, far
from being foe to labor, he has been its con-
sistent champion, and that he has striven to
dignity it and to protect it from injustice and ex-
ploitaton. He Is not an eleventh-hour convert.
His utterances concerning 1t have been consist
ent throughout his public life, and his achieve
ments in its behalf will not soon be forgotten