The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1902-06-07

Not Tell story OF His "rOu8os
One swallow does not make summer.
and half a dozen sound and just judi
cial decisions in cases involving
labor's fundamental rights do not war
rant over-confidence or jubilation. But
it is distinctly gratifying and encour-
aging to note signs of judicial prog
ress, to observe the gradual-we might
say inevitable advance of rational
ideas in regard to the value and neces-
sity Of unionism with all that it i'm
plies. Bi9Otry and stupidity will die
hard, but they will die.
In our last issue we commented upon
one of the best labor" decisions ever
rendered by the highest court Of g.
state, that of the New York Court Of
Appeals on the right to strike, and to
threaten a strike, as a. means Of en-
forcing the right to work only with
certain fellow employees, and to secure
the discharge of Objectionable en-
ployes.
Here we wish to direct attention to
another significant and far-reaching
decision, rendered by the supreme
court of Missouri. The latter has ex-
cited fully as much comment as the
New York decision, and not a little
hostile criticism from papers with a
plutocratic bias. One paper says that
the Missouri case is, lin the highest
degree subversive of the protection of
property and property rights" We
have heard this before in other affairs
concerning labOr's. rights, and it will
no infarocfino f1 ovoroino "a fonts ~
the case.
It appears that the United Garment
Workers of America and some labor
officials at St. Louis had instituted a
boycott" against a clothing firm do
ing business in the city named. Cir
| culars had been published and dis
tributed to the public asking it, for
reasons set forth, to withhold patron
age from the firm in question. The
"boycotted" company had applied for
an injunction to restrain the unionists
and their friends from issuing and
scattering the circulars. The court of
the first instance denied the application
and the supreme court has affirmed the
Judgment.
It was not claimed by the company
that the boycott" circulars contained
libelous. false, or malicious statements.
had that been alleged and proved, a
different question would have been
presented. All that was asserted was
that the circulars injured the business
of the complainant and it was assumed
that the courts had the power and were
bound under the general law as to
property rights, to prevent the contin-
uance of such injury.
NO. says the supreme court, 1--WE
have no such right or power" The con-
stitution of Missouri guaranteed the
freedom of speech and publication on
all subjects, and made those who
abused such freedom responsible at
law for such abuse. That is, If the
abuse was proved, damages might be
secured. But to restrain the publica-
ton of boycotting circulars would be a
violation of the right of free speech.
To quote from the opinion Of Chief
Justice Sherwood: ~
IF these defendants are not permit
ted to tell the story of their wrongs,
or, If you please, their supposed
wrongs, by word of mouth or with pen
or print, and to endeavor to permit
others to aid them by all proper means
in securing redress of such wrongs,
what becomes of free speech, and what
of personal liberty? The fact that in
exercising that freedom they thereby
do plaintiff an actual injury does not
go hair toward diminution of their
rights of speech, for the exercise of
which, If resulting in such injury, the
Constitution makes them expressly
1,,,%
utterly incompatible with authorizing
a court of equity to prevent such re-
sponsibility from occurring
We do not see how this reasoning
can be successfully challenged. To
say, as some do, that the decision legal
ICES systematic libel is absurd. There
are laws on the statute books Of Miss
ouri against libel, and the boycotted
firm is free to avail itself of its rights
under the law.
When a boycott circular contains
libelous statements the offense consists
in the libel, not in the boycotting.
Where the advice or appeal of the boy
cotters is based upon true allegations
no charge of libel will lie. An injury
to property may result, but this in
Jury is the result of the actions of the
boycotted party. 1t is not to be sup
posed that the public will boycott a
man who has done nothing wrong or
unjust.
However, it should be recognized that
the Missouri supreme court did not de-
eide that boycotting was legal. 1t
simply decided that the constitutional
right Of free speech was limitation
upon the remedy of the injunction writ.
In a number of states the courts have
enjoined the publication Of boycotting
circulars; but the question of free
speech, so far as we are aware, was
not raised in any of these cases. The
Missouri decision establishes an i'm
portant precedent, and opens to Or
ganized labor a new line of defense
against the abuse of the tnjunction;
for in most Of the states of the Union
there are constitutional provisions Sc
curing the right of free speech and
free publication. -