The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1916-08-26
!GO|MPERS ON HUGHES: -.
SAYS RECORD |SBAD.
While Serving On Supreme Bench
Upheld Injunction fling
Against HIATT 20. s.
GAVE SEVERAL DECISIONS ..
lNIMICAL TO WORKMEN
Said Anti Trust Law Was Applic-
able to Personal Relations
Of Wage Farmers.

Samuel Gompers, president of the
american Federation of Labor, wrote
Aug. 10, 1915, from the headauarters
OF the organization, to Mr.. Thomas IT
Nichols, of Alliance, Ohio, a letter
giving the history and connection Of
Hon. Charles E. Hughes with certain
celebrated legislation. It seems that
the distinguished candidate of the Re-
puoncan party had quite a record.
This, too, was evidently known to the
reactionaries of his party who made
MIN their party's nominee. The letter
OF Mr.. Gompers is completely self-ex-
planatory and follows:
Aug. Is. 1916.
Mr.. Thomas H. Nichols,
636 East Main street,
Alliance, Ohio.
Dear Sir and Brother:
Your letter of recnt date, asking for
the record Of Hon. Charles E. Hughes.
nominee of the Republican party for
president, in regard to labor matters
and particularly as to the famous
Danbury Hatters' case, was received.
| The Danbury Hatters' case has an
historical place in 1abor's struggle for
freedom. It was in the course of the
trial Of this case that the workers Of
our country finally succeeded in Sc
curing declaration from the highest
court Of the land as to the application
of antitrust legislation to associations
OF wage-earners.
case involved principle of funda-
mental importance to workers. It was
the same principle involved in the
abuse Of the writ Of injunction which,
under the perversion of judges, who
had NJ understanding of industrial
conditi. hnd the labor of human
beings, hI5A been transformed into an
agency at the service Of employers
who wished to restrict the industrial
freedom of their employees and to pre-
vent their using legitimate methods
OF securing their demands and. pro-
noting their welfare.
The theory upon which courts have
held that antitrust legislation applied
to associations OF wage-earners and
that injunctions could be used to
regulate industrial relations, which
are personal relations, was the as
sumption that the labor of q human
being was an article or a commodity
and. therefore, property. This as
sumption recognizes no distinction be-
tween the creative labor power of a
human being which is inseparable
from his living body and the articles
which he produces.
! In 1908 the supreme court Of the
United States rendered a decision in
the Hatters' case when the initial ap-
peal was made.
: In 1914 the United States supreme
court delivered its final decision in
the case and sustained the conten-
tions Of the lawyers of the Anti-Boy-
eott association, which instigated suit
against the hatters in the name of the
D. E. Loewe company, hat manufac-
iturers of Danbury. Connecticut.
Held Labor q Commodity.
The court sustained the position
that the Sherman Antitrust law ap-
piled to the personal attributes and
normal activities of human beings. 1t
held to the theory that there was no
distinction between the labor power
Of human beings on the one hand and
articles or commodities on the other
l-articles or commodities which men
sought to control and manipulate
through trusts. This decision threat
ened the very existence Of voluntary
associated effort-the effort Of organ
lied workers to carry out the normal
purposes for which they were organ
lied, that is, to improve standards of
life and work, wages, hours and con-
~ M
''ities Of the workers we're, by the de-
Icislon Of the supreme court Of the
United States, regarded as liable to all
the civil and: criminal penalties under
tho antitrust laws Of the United
States. In other words, the Sherman
Antitrust law, enacted to curb the
cupidity and Vaccinations of the
com binations of wealthy owners, was
Ito be applied to the voluntary organi-
zation Of the workers instituted for
beneficent purposes and tho welfare
lof human beings.
Tho decision in this case, which Is
known an Labor VS.. .Loewe, declared
THAT the damages in the case. were
$50, 600, which. under the provisions
Of the Sherman Antitrust Act, were
,ttripled, and,' together with the costs
OF the case and the interest, made a
total sum Of over 100000, which the
'Danbury hatters must. pay D. E.
Ioewe & Co.
Mr.. Charles e. Hughes was JUS
itice Of the United States supreme
court at the time this decision was
rendered and he concurred in the de-
'cision.
:. The last decision in this case, al
though it is brief, reaffirms all that
the court declared in its 1908 opinion.
There is another opinion OF the
United states supreme court, written
|by Justice Hughes, which throws light
[,,non his attitude upon this principle,
which is of fundamental importance
|to the workers of the country. It is
his opinion in tho case Of Truax vs..
Reich q case which involves the con-
stitutionality Of the Arizona anti-alien
law. Under that law all employers. of