Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-09-24
RESPONSIBILITY OF BoYcoTTERs.

! oF OUtCUttcftS.
{ The ~Anti-Boyeott Association, which
appears To have a considerable mem
hersaip and strength in the eastern
states, has brought a series of damage
suits for damages against certain Con-
nectfeut labor unions. me outcome OF
which Mil be awaited with interest
Damages are claimed for losses TO a
Danbury firm of hat manufacturers on
account of a boycott instituted and
carried OH by the unions. and the suits
seek to enioin against the use of SINH
lar methods of compulsion hereafter.
an Interesting feature of the litigation
is that the private bank accounts and
real estate holdings Of officers and
members Of the union 10 the value of
about S350,000. have been attached
pending the issue of the suits. II the
association should be able TO establish
the facts of an unlawful conspiracy
there is likely TO be waiiing and gnash-
ing of teeth in Danbuiy.
The story of the boycott as given in
such affairs. The hat factory had been
Esn the past a union factory, but had
been ACKNOWLEDGEMENT because the own
.ers found that independent competitors
were able TO undersell them. However,
no discrimination was made against
union men, who were largely employed.
nor, when the demand vas made that
the factory should be unionized again,
was any complaint respecting wage or
treatment or methods Brought against
it. Indeed, it was urged by the union
officials that Virtually no change OF
would be required. How
ever. the owners decided to maintain
their independence. anu consequently
the boycott was instituted and rigidly
all over the country. with the
customers that the factory was 'sun-
At first some OF the customers
continued to buy its product, where
upon the next usual step was taken and
customers in turn We're warned
asainst them. The result was that
regretfully felt constrained TO
yield, and in the end the hat makers
a large part of their business
and suffered a heavy loss. 1t is
he SAM old story of successful con-
raey 70 ruin or command.
acre viii be a general wish that !
II IS time that onle sort of
asibi}ity IS fixed apon the boy !,
o>te. s.tlss collectively or Individual !.
TIE light TO ruin Should either be
sta@allea or denied by law. There is !.
thieal.y no difference between the
aad the boycott. Both are
owardly and opposed to the common +
Of q free people. The company Fl
fhich ~b,aeklists a discharged employe o
ause it has an Individuality as a per- f,
on in the eye of the law. Its corpo- h
ate standing makes II responsible as e.
ie property of the private employer n
him responsible. If the state 81
nd federal courts of Connecticut shall c,
nd the Individual members of the boy t,
sitting unions financially responsible ID
!. law for damages resulting rom their re
ction as an organiZatiortt hvre will be
~ 10 question the justice of their
Il
While the personal difference be- s.
veen the individual characters of the q
oycotter and a b%arnburner is likely to 81
2 markedly in favor of the boycotter, "
lie principles and results OF the two hl
It's present no vide variation. The D'
,irit of ~eompulsion and revenge is be- U
nd the one as we'll as the other. There y
e Two means to an enc that labor 8
aions must forego Ii they wish to re-
in the respect of the public-the boy N
1T n the sympathetic strike. q,