New Britain herald., 1916-10-10

the Union League club, who presid- ed, accorded MT. Hughes the most enthusiastic applause of the night when he struck out for the mainten- ance of American rights.
 Mr. Hughes made his declaration of Americanism an answer to the assertion of President Wilson that the republican party stood for war policy That assertion, he said. was simply an effort of the administra- ton to escape deserved condemna- ton.
 In addition, MT. Hughes, for the first time, answered the charge that as a Justice of the United States Su preme court he had personally dealt a blow at organized labor in the Dan bury Hat case decision, a charge which has been frequently laid at his door during his campaign tours tossed at him here and there in labor centers in insulting, derisive tones
 This climax of the night came while MT. Hughes was midway in his dec laration about Americanism and the protection of American lives, prop erty, and commerce. A man in the gallery shouted: How about the Danbury Hatters case?"
 There were misses and shouts of Put him out"
 Now, my friend,'' said MT. Hughes, "I will tell you all about that case as soon as I get through with this part of my statement"
 When he came to answer 1t few minutes later there was another dis n,;or ~p Make him stand up,'' were heard.
 "Oh, no, no. do not embarrass him. said MT. Hughes. Then with a firm voice and emphatic gestures the can- didate took up the case.
 Explains Danbury Decision.
 The question related to the Dan- bury hatters' case" he said, "a case decided by the supreme court of the United States, of which I was 8 mem Der. The decision was an unanimous one; and, as that statement implies, I concurred in it. I did my duty as a judge, enforcing the laws of the land.
 Now what was this case? There was a manufacturer who said that he suffered in his business through what is known as a secondary boycott; that there was an association of working
 
 destroyed his business. He brought a suit in the federal court to recover treble damages under tie Sherman antitrust act
 ''The first question presented was whether. on his own statement, he had made out case. That went to the su preme court of the United States long before I was a member of it, and the court decided that, if what he stated was true, he had made out a case. Then it was for him to prove his case. He went back to a trial. The case was tried before judge arC' a jury. The facts were submitted to the jury, and the jury found i'll his favor.
 Then there was an appeal taken to the supreme court of the United States. At that time I was a member of the court. The question 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 wheth- CT the trial judge had erred in submit ting the question to the jury. In sub stance, the question was whether members of an association of that sort were responsible for the acts of their officers, if upon the evidence they
 
 these acts.
 That is rather simple proposition m the law of agency, that men are re- Sponsible for those whom they en- ploy or direct. The question whether the men knew, the question whether or not they had opportunities for in formation as to what was going on, so that it was a case properly submitted to the jury was matter of cOnsidera- tion. The court found there was evil dence enough to go to the jury, and it was a question for the jury what the fact Was and therefore the judgment was unanimously affirmed"
 Friend of Justice, Friend of Labor.
 That is all there is of it, Mr. Hughes went on: Now l stand here to say that, whether as a judge, or, if elected, as a president, on any ques- tion coming before me I shall enforce the laws of the land. And it makes no difference whether the question is raised by labor or raised by capital.
 If laws are not right the remedy is to change them. This is free gov ernment. It is the business of Judges to enforce the laws as trey are. It is the business of presidents to enforce the laws as they are. And, so far as I have anything to say further on the subject, l will say this to my friends the workingmen-for my record in New York IS we'll known. And organ ized labor in their journals, when I left the governorship to go on the bench, paid me the compliment of saying that I was the best friend of labor laws that ever sat in the eNecu- tive chair at Albany. If I were to sum up in a sentence, in a phrase, what l would like to say to the laporing men of the country, it is this: That the best friend of labor is the friend of lustice.'