Samuel Gompers: Editorial on the Supreme Court Ruling in the Danbury Hatters’ Case

Explanation and Analysis of the Document

On February 3, 1908, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its decision in the Danbury Hatters' Case. According to the Court, the boycott by the United Hatters of North America was an unlawful restraint of trade, and the manufacturer was entitled to triple damages under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In his American Federationist editorial of March 1908, Gompers asserts his opposition to the Court's ruling, although he concludes that the decision must be obeyed until Congress is able to bestow legislative relief for labor. In his advice to AFL organizers, Gompers makes it clear that as union president he is willing to accept the legal burdens that defiance of the Supreme Court's decision would entail. Nevertheless, he concludes that such a course of action would do little to avoid coercive actions by the state against other union officials and members. Gompers concludes that under the court's ruling all union officers would be liable for any violations committed by any AFL official or member. Thus, any individual action taken by Gompers would endanger the entire organization. Gompers goes on to argue that is almost inconceivable that the Court would make such a draconian decision. considering the services rendered by the AFL and labor movement to the economy and American civilization, but the Court is punishing labor while allowing big business, whose monopolistic policies the Sherman Act was passed to regulate, to remain unpunished.

Indeed, while finding the decision unjust, Gompers insists that labor must work within the system. He indicates, however, that he is willing to somewhat abandon his principles of voluntarism on this occasion, arguing that direct congressional action is necessary to protect organized labor, for the Court made the “natural and rational voluntary action of workmen unlawful and punishable by fine and imprisonment.” Gompers recognizes the dangers of legislation generally in asserting that Congress did not intend that the Sherman Antitrust Act be applied to labor organizations. Nevertheless, the Court's ruling means that labor must seek relief from the legislative branch. Gompers concludes his editorial with a traditional call for continued organization to “promote the uplifting and noble work of our great cause of humanity.”