The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1903-10-27
BOYcOTTs.


the New York evening Post what the
latter says are indisputable facts with
spect to the now famous Danbury
boycott case. d. r. Loewe & Co. are
hat manufacturers at Danbury, Conn.
Their factory was not unioniZed, but
was open to union and non-union en-
ployes alike. These workingmen were
laboring side by side with apparent
: content, when the officers of the Hat
makers Union demanded that the fac
tory be unionized throughout. This
the proprietors refused to do, and
thereupon a boycott was inaugurated
by the union.
This boycott was no merely local af-
fair. 1t was n boycott on all mer-
chants in the United states who did
not refuse to handle the goods OF
Loewe e. Co. The extent to which 1t
was carried is exampled In the case OF
Triest G. Co., the largest hat jobbers
in San Francisco who continued to
handle the goods of the Danbury rae
tory. A notice of boycott was served
on every retail hat dealer in San
Francisco, and they were ordered to
withdraw their patronage from Triest
& Co., so long as that firm refused to
obey the boycott on Loewe & Co.
Loewe & Co. have gone into the FED
eral court for protection from this kind
of assault. They set up that their
business has been ruined by the boy
colt and they ask for $4,000 damages
on this score. They also brought
similar damage suit in the state courts,
and in this suit they issued attachments
against the defendants, the attach
ments being levied upon the houses and
bank accounts Of the individual MEM
bers of the hatters' union. This Is
done upon the theory that the union,
not being a corporation, Is simply a
partnership, in which all the members
are individually liable as partners for
the acts of the co-partnership.
Undoubtedly one or both of these
cases will go to the supreme court for
final settlement-for such construc-
ton of the antitrust law as will es-
tablish once for all the legality or IL
legality of the boycott.
Noting these cases, a recent issue OF
the Outlook declares that the matter
presents itself in three questions: What
is right? What ought to be illegal?
What is illegal? The last question can
be dismissed from present consideration
for any answer would be anticipatory |
of the decision of the courts which must
deal with this phase of the problem
and nothing else. I'VE are not pre-
pared to say that all boycotts are I'M
justifiable," says the outlook in an
swering question No. 1. 1--WE think
the members Of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union have a right to
agree together that they will not buy
groceries of merchants who deal in
liquor. On the same principle, we
think that members of trades unions
have right to agree together that they
will not buy hats which do not bear
union label, and other members of
the community have the same right to
agree that they will not buy hats which
do bear the union label. But 1t is
quite another matter for men to agree
together to compel their fellowmen to
join them in n boycott. For the men,
bers of the Womans Christian Tenn !
perance Union to refuse to deal with
dealers who do buy groceries at stores
where liquor is sold, in order thus to
compel such persons to join them In
the boycott, would be morally wrong. |
We can hardly conceive case in
which what might be called a sympa-
thetic boycott could be ethically de-
Tended. But whether such n boycott
should be prohibited by law is an
other question. There are many
wrongs which we must trust public
opinion rather than legislative enact
ment to correct. We should prefer to
see vigorous attempt made by the in
dependent members of the community,
whether laborers or employers, to break
the force of such a boycott as that
declared against Loewe & Co"
The Kansas City journal thinks 1--WE
are getting on dangerous ground when
We say, as does the outlook, that
boycott is justiiable up to a certain
point and no further. If a boycott is
justfiable at ALL why not to the most
effective extent to which it can be car
ried? The outlook justities an agree
ment between parties not to patronize
store or factory and this without
regard to the kind of offense which the
store or factory may have given. Let
us suppose that the factory or store
Is conducted in an honorable, upright
and satisfactory manner-is n conspir-
acy ruin it's business justifiable I'M
der any rule of morals? The essence
of every case of the kind is not the ex-
tent to which the boycott is carried,
but the cause or reason for which the
boycott has been declared.
"The boycott is an infamous weapon,
whether welded by labor unions or
labor employers. Public sentiment is
quick to execrate the employer who
'blacklists' an employee because they
cannot agree upon questions of labor
unionism. We know that employees of
railroads and other great industrial en-
terprises have been blacklisted for no
other reason. 1t is hard to conceive
of crueler thing than the blacklist
applied to honest toll. Yet wherein
does the blacklist differ from the boy
colt in essence or principle, and alb
how can we justify one without
justifying the other?
IF labor and capital must fight, let
1t be with honorable and manly weap
ons. Public sentiment ought to be
educated up to the point where 1t will
tolerate neither the blacklist nor the
boycott. The way to do this is to
reject conspiracies of every kind which
have for their object either one or the
other. Strikes and lockouts are bad
enough and vicious enough as weapons,
but they are fair and justifiable when