OCR Text |
Show FAMOUS HATTERS CASE DECIDED United States District Court of Appeals Returns Judgment Against Union. LOWE GRANTED $232,000 Plaintiff Claims Heavy Loss as Result of United Hatters' Hat-ters' Boycott New York, Dec. 1 The United ?iates court of appeals today decided the famous Danbury Hatters case In favor of D I-.' Lowe, the plaintiff, .ind against the United Hatters of North America. The court returned a judgment In favor of Mr Lowe and . gains! the hatters' organization. With Interests and costs, the Judgment Judg-ment now amounts to $272,000. At the first trinl. beld In 1 r o . the plaintiffs plain-tiffs obtained a Judgment for 2I2,240. Sustaining the second Judgment. Tudtce Coxe. declared that It was no loi.;;er debatable, "that the anti-trust act Is applicable to such combinations combina-tions as are alleged In the com-plnlnt." com-plnlnt." and that the net made no distinctions between classes of combinations com-binations or Individuals The court held that it had been clearly established that the plaintiffs were encaged in an Interstate business busi-ness and that the defendants are members of a trades union, and affiliated af-filiated with the American Federation Federa-tion of labor, "one of the objects of the latter organization being to assist as-sist Its members In any Justifiable boycott' and with financial help In the event of a strike or lockout." Factory Not Union. It waa shown at the trial that In March. 1901, the United Hatters had resolved to unionize the factory of the plaintiffs and that Mr Lowe had been informed by the union officials that the batters "would resort to the usual methods" in case their plan cbonld meet with opposition. On July 5, 1912. the plaintiff employes were directed to co on strike, and it U claimed that almost immediately a boycott was established. The plaintiffs assert that Uils measure ' converted a profit of ?27.000 ln 1901 into losses ranging from $17,000 in 1902 to $3,000 In 1904 " Judge Coxe said in conclusion of his finding; "No one disputes the proposition that labor unions are lawful. All must admit that they are not only lawful but highly beneficial when legally and fairly conducted, but like all other combinations, irrespective ) of their objects and purposes, they muyt obey the law " Case In Court Ten Years. Danbury. Conn.. Dee 18. The so-cilled so-cilled Danbury Hatters case has been I before the courts for more than ten years. Once It was before the United Unit-ed States supreme court. Of the I IIP original defendants, more than thirty have since died, and two have rone Insane. The American Federation Federa-tion of Lubor suppoited the hatters j , ' and prominent labor officials. Includ- j ( ing Samuel Gompers. John Mitchell i , i and Frank Morrison gave testimony ( at some of the trials. ( A walkout of union hatters employed em-ployed by D. E. Lowe & Company In ; 1911. was the beginning of the case. i 1 he factory up to that time and since has been condwted on a non-union basis. In 1902. D E. Lowe & com- , pany brought suit against Martin l.awler and 239 other members of tbe , hatters' union, alleging a boycott that , was In violation of the Sherman antitrust anti-trust law In that Interstate commerce com-merce was restrained The company alleged that its business had been seriously injured by the boycott and claimed $250,000 damages. Soon after the suit was brought, the American Federation of Labor decided de-cided to stand behind the defendants atid to reimburse them against any loss The anti-boycott society of America supported the plaintiffs, so the litigation in reality developed Into In-to a legal battle between these two organ'zatlons. |