New-York tribune., 1907-08-20
TO ENJOIN A. F. OF L.
LEGAL ACTION BEGUN.
Manufacturers Would Stop Use OF
Boycott and Unfair Last.


Washington. Aug ia significant legal ac-
ton was begun in the Supreme Court or the
District of Columbia to-day by James W. van
Cleave president Of the National Association OF
Manufacturers. to enjoin Samuel Gompers, Jonn
Mitchell and other officers of the American
Federation of Labor and several Of Its sub
sdiary organizations from issuing the ooycoss
and so-called unfair list
Mr. Van CIeave Institutes the suit in the name
OF large manufacturing company Of ST. Louis.
of which he is president. whose products are
alleged TO have been declared unfair by the
labor unions The significance of the action.
however, lies in It's being test case. wherein
Mr.. Van CIeave. head Of the manufacturers
association, seeks permanently TO entoin organ
tied labor from using the unfair or I'VE don't
patronzer lists in its fight against firms and
individuals
The papers were fled here that personal SER
vice might be Immediately obtained against
large number Of the labor leaders named IN the
complaint who are in Washington IN attendance
upon general conference
The bill asks for a permanent in1unction
against Samuel Gompers and Frank Morrison,
of Washington; John V Lennon. of Blooming
ton, Ill; James Duncan. of Quincy. Mass John
Mitchell of Indianapolisfh James O'Conneil, of
Washington: Max Morris. Of Denver; Denis
A Hayes of Pnnadelphia: Daniel J. keefe. OF
Detroit: William D. Huber. Of Indianapolis:
Joseph F. Valentine. Of Cincinnati. all of the
American Federation Of Labor: also r. L.
Thixton C. o. Buckington. H c. Pope. A j.
Cooper and e l. Hickman. individuals and
as officers Of the EIectrotype Moulders and
Ffnfshers' Union No. II. and members Of the
international Stereotypers' and Electrotypers
Union The complainant is the Bucks Stove
and Range Company, OF ST. Louis
The plaintiffs ask that the defendants be en-
Joined on nine special points. first alleging a
conspiracy unlawfully to injure their business
These points follows=
From In any manner carrying a conspir-
acy restrain and destroy the business OF the
plaintiff: from agreeing or combining 10 inter
fere in any manner with the business OK tne
plaintiff any other person. firm or corpora
ton; from boycotting or attempting to boycott
or threatening TO boycott the plaintir or tne
plaintiffs business or attempting TO interfere
1rtth the regular operation or the shipment,
sale or trade in its goods or from aiding or
abetting such boycott: from printing puoIsh-
Of .The American Federation which is
the organ OF the American Federation OF Labor,
which contains the name OF the Dlalnr1r cor
portation under it's I'VE Don't Patronize' or
Unfair" list OF which contains any statement
that the plaintiff is or has been unfair; from
publishing or circulating IN any way IN puF-
suance of the alleged conspiracy. in writing or
orally any statement 70 the INJURY on the
product of the plaintiffs factory; from repre-
sentfng or stating to customers OF the plainti1
or dealers the public that the platntiffs fac
tory has been bOycotted and that IT'S goods
should not be dealt in or for the purpose on
coercing any dealer or person not 10 purchase
the plaintiffs product: from threatening or M
timidatrg the customers OF the plaintiff or from
doing any acts in aid of the conspiracy or coin-
bination alleged; from giving any ORDERS or ol-
agents or others for the performance OF any
acts or threats which would impede. 0bstruct
or interfere with the conduct OF the platntlffs 5
business: from carrying on the alleged cOnspir-
conducting his proper business IN any Other
states or territories of the union and from
doing any Of the acts or using any OF the means
IN the complaint for that purpose
The complaint then goes on TO state that the
American Federation OF Labor comprises 10
national or International unions. and has. dur
ing the last twenty years. repeatedly declared
boycotts against the business and product or
the customers of numerous individuals and con-
Germs and has actively prosecuted them by using
its combined power for that purpose to wage
destructive attacks on any person or business
under it's BAN and that this power is now
being directed rnaliciousIy against the business
of the plaintiff. II sets forth that the character
OF these bOycOtts Is shown in the reports OF the
executive council. made TO the convention IN
December. 1895. and these methods set forth
in circumstantiaI detail in the complaint
The steps leading up TO this action are set
forth in the complaint TO be the outcome Of a
strike According TO the complaint on August
% 1906 without previous notice the members
OF Metal Polishers Union No Is. or St Louis.
in the employ Of the stove company. struck IN
a body and without notice to conference with
the company or waiting for adjustment Of
grievances which is set forth TO have been IN
violation OF an agreement between the Interna-
tioual Union OF Metal Polishers and the Stove
Founders National Defence Association, Of
which the Bucks company is member. and
under which all differences have for fourteen
years been successfully adjusted by a conferences
committee.
On the failure OF the strike the International
Union of Metal POlshers declared boycott
against the Bucks company and its product. tn
serted the companys name IN its unfair list
and published IT IN the union paper. The Jour-
nall The local union. No 13. also joined IN the
boycott and procured it's Endorsement by the
Central Trades and Labor Union of ST. Louis
and the Metal Trades Council also OK St Louis
both subordinate unions of the American Fed
Grafton
In November. 1906. at the annual convention
of the American Federation. in Minneapolis. the
products OF the company were placed on the
1--WE Don't Patronize' list of the federation. and
were published In this list in The American
F'ederationist' in the June and July. 1901- is
sues. Besides this it is alleged that various
tices to union men were sent out by the union
interests to aid the boycott The complaint
goes on to recite at considerable length various
instances In which customers of the firm were
forced by the union to refuse TO buy its prod
nets and correspondence is given to illustrate
the methods employed to enforce the boycott
The complaint sets forth that by OF the