Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-03-07
SHERWOOD ! q DECISION
THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI
 ON BOYCoTTlNG.

"h1Ch 1A O1 l"pOEhAhCe HO OT&uAA~
 ized Labor.
 The Marx & Haas Jeans Clothing company of St. Louis sought by in function to prevent Watson and his as- sociates from declaring or enforcing boycott against it by inducing its GUS toners and others who might become such to deal with it to the injury of it's business. A temporary injunction was granted, but on a hearing in the St. Louis circuit court this injunction was dissolved and the petition dismissed. The company then appealed to the su- preme court, which affirmed the action of the court below. q.
 Marx & Haas had had trouble with their clothing cutters for some years, resulting first in boycott by the Knights of Labor in 1895 and again in a boycott undertaken by joint board of the Knights of Labor and the Unit ed Garment Workers of America af1l iated with the American Federation of Labor. In furtherance of this latter eff fort circular reciting at some length the various difficulties and grievances was issued and distributed freely among the patrons and possible patrons of the firm This circular concluded: "We are positive we have proven to you the justice of our position, and we hope 1t will not be necessary to inform the labor and reform organizations with which we are affiliated who are in your locality, as we are satisfied we have convinced you that the stand we R,. Al sx, I,fe ic, i11cf and will command the support of all fair minded men. We therefore request you to write to Messrs. Marx & Haas and inform them that you would re- quest them to settle the dispute with their employees, or otherwise you can not afford to handle their goods as long as they are antagonizing organized la Dor, who are your friends and custom CTS. By doing this you will aid us in getting simple justice from this more than unfair firm. Should this firm make settlement with us, you will be in- formed of the fact under the seals of the Joint organizations. Until such time we trust there will be no report made to our office that Marx & Haas have shipped you any more goods. IuIOTu us Wudt dCIlOu yOu take in this matter, and any further information you may desire will be cheerfully furnished by writing to headquarters of joint executive board, 911 Pine street, St. Louis, Mo"
 Tn addition to the sending of this cir cular committees visited various mer- chants in St. Louis and vicinity to Pre- sent the matter more fully, and in some instances threats were made by mem- bers of these committees that the pat ronage of the boycotters and their friends would be withheld from certain merchants unless they discontinued their business dealings with the cloth ing company. Tn no instance, however, were there threats of resort to violence or unlawful intimidation.
 The petition of the clothing company concluded with the request that "the defendants, their associates, confeder- ates, agents and representative be en- joined and restrained by temporary order of injunction, to be made final upon the hearing Of this cause, from boycotting or making effectual, pro- mitigating or in anywise proclaiming any boycott upon or against the plain tiff or its goods, and from sending, con- veying or delivering in any way to any person, firm, corporation or associa- ton any boycott notice, verbal or oth- erwise, referring to the plaintiff or its goods and from in any way menacing, hindering or obstructing the plaintiff from the fullest enjoyment of all the patronage, business and custom which it may possess enjoy or acquire inde- pendent of the action of the said de fendants or any of them"
 Judge Sherwood announced the opin- ion of the court. After stating the above facts and reviewing the evil dence given before the court below, he disposed of the question of the jurisdic- ton of the supreme court in the case Proceeding to the point in issue, he said:
 Section IA of our bill of rights de- clares that mo law shall be passed inn pairing the freedom of speech; that ev- cry person shall be free to say, write or publish whatever, he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty The evident idea of that section is penalty or punishment and not prevention. Because, if pre- vention exists, then no opportunity can possibly arise for one becoming respon- sible by saying, writing or publishing whatever he will on any subject The two tdeas-the one of absolute freedom to say, write or publish whatever he will on any subject coupled with re- sponsibility therefor, and the other idea of preventing any such free speech, free writing or free publication-can- not coexist. And just here it must be observed that the right of free speech, free writing or free publication was not created by the constitution, which recognizes those rights as now existing and only seeks their protection and per- petuation.
 Section IA, supra, makes no distinc- ton and authorizes no difference to be made by courts or legislatures between n proceeding set on foot to enjoin the publication of libel and one to enjoin the publication of any other sort or na- ture, however injurious 1t may be, or