The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-10-26
BOYCOTTS.

respect to the now famous Danbury
boycott case. D. E. 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. Tt was a boycott on all mer-
chants in the United States who did
not refuse to handle the goods of
Ioewe & Co. The extent to which it
was carried is exampled in the case of
Triest & Co., the largest hat jobbers
in San Francisco, who continued to
handle the goods of the Danbury fac
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
&c Co., so long as that firm refused to
obey the boycott on Loewe & Co.
Loewe & Co. have gone into the Fed
erai court for protection from this kind
of assault They set up that their
business has been ruined by the boy
acjr fnr e0A0 mn
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 ana
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 Tor
final settlement-for suchs 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. We are not pre-
pared to say that all boycotts are un-
justifiable," says the Outlook In an
swering question No. /. I'VE think
the members of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union have right 10
agree together that they will not puy
proceries of merchants who deal In
liquor On the same principe, we
think that members of trades unions
have a right to agree together that they
win not buy hats which do not bear
a union label, and other members OF
the community have the same right 10
agree that they will not buy hats Wnlch
do bear the union label. But II Is
r,ite another matter for men to agree
together to compel their fellowmen TO
Join them in boycott. For the mefn-
hers of the Woman's Christian rem
perance, Union to refuse to deal with
dealers who do buy groceries at stores
where LIQUOR is sold, in order thus 10
compel such persons to join them IN
the boycott, would be morally wrong.
We can hardly conceive g. case In
which. what might be called a sympa-
thetic boycott could be officially de-
Tended. But whether such a 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 boycott as that
declared against Loewe & Co"
The Kansas City Journal thinks we
are getting on dangerous ground wher
we say, as does the Outlook. that
boycott is justifiable up to certain
zsoint and no further. If a boycott /:
unsuitable at all, why not to the mos
effective extent to which it can be car
ried? The Outlook justifies an agree
ment between parties not to patroniz
a store or a factory, and this withou
regard to the kind of offense which Tn
store or factory may have given. LIE
us suppose that the factory or stor
is conducted in an honorable, uprigh
and satisfactory manner-is conspir
acy o. ruin it's business justifiable III
der any rule of morals? The essenc
of every case of the kind is not the e2
tent to which the boycott is CARRIE
but the cause or reason for which II
hoycott has been declared