Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-17
STOVE CONF AIY
GETS INJUNCTION
Justice Gould Decides Against
Federation of Labor.
FINAL HEARING IN SPRING
Temporary Protection Afforded a
Manufacturing Concern.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY
Court Declares Regarding This
There Is But Little Room
for Argument.
ALLEGED ILLEGAL CONSPIRACY

Justice Gould, in Equity Court No. >
today decided to grant a temporary IN
junction, substantially prayed by the
Bucks Stove and Range Company of ST.
Louis Mo-, against the American Fedora
tion of Labor. The court held that on
the showing made the st. Louis concern
IL entitled To be protected by an injunc-
ton until the final hearing of the case,
which will probably occur next spring.
After an exhaustive statement of facts
covering thrty-six typewritten pages. the
court declares that the record discloses
two general questions for determinatio
by the court: First, Has the plaintiff
shown the existence of an unlawful COM
bination and conspiracy to destroy his
business?' and. second, Does the testi-
mony connect the defendants. or any
of them. with such combination or con-
spiracy to make them amenable to the
injunctive power of the court?' Both of
these questions Justice Gould resolves in
favor of the complainantS.
Upon the first proposition" says Jus
tice Gould, there is little room for ar
gument or discussion
One of the counsel for defendant
stated in argument: The American
Federation of Labor has refused inter-
course with the plaintiff. business in
tercourse. such as comes from the pur-
chase of Stoves. 1t has persuaded its
friends to refuse that intercourse. 1t
says: Have nothing to do with this
man or anything he makes as long as
this condition of affairs exists
Business Stopped Under Threats.
There is no attempt to deny that
plaintiffs customers. even those under
contract. have refused to continue busi
ness dealings with it under threat of
being boycotted by the local organi-
zations AFFILIATED with the federation.
1t does not become necessary in this
case to disSSss whether placing plain
TINS name pn the unfair list or on
the 'we-don't- -patronize' list in the Fed
erationist amounts to what IS tech
nically called a boycott, for the reason
that the affldavits as to what has been
actually done with reference to plain
tiff's customeNs leaves no doubt as to
what has been in fact accomplished. A
boycott Is defined in the Cyclopedia of
RlNding and Practice as follows: This
ter1NrSeneralpy means the confedera
tlonlgenerallf secret. by many persons
whotA<<Sntent' is to injure another by
preventing an persons from doing bust
ness wNh him through fear of incur
ring ny di1pleasure: persecution and
reSense 1of the conspirators.' y better
def Ritteh, to my mind. is that given by
4 Taft. circuit judge tnow Secretary of
War;: a boycott is a combination of
Nmany to Cause a loss to one person by
eoercing<~others. against their will. to
withdraw from him their beneficial
Sesiness intercourse through threats
that, unless these others do so, the
many will cause serious loss to them.
TMS definition was given in March,
1891 and IL was of such combinations
thatstne same Judge said. in July, 1894.
in deciding another case: 'Boycotts,
though unaccompanied by violence or
intimidation. have been pronounced un-
lawful in every state of the United
states where the question has arisen
unfess in Minnesota. and they are held
to be unlawful in England Since this
statement was made boycotts have
been held IS unlawful in Mime sofa.
Decisions Cited.
1T is not my intention to refer to all
the cases in which the question has
been similarly decided, but the follow
ing citations (sixteen decisions, federal
and state) are carefully considered
cases supporting the statement of the
law as laid down by Judge Taft Some
of them were criminal prosecutions.
some actions at law for damages and
others suits in equity for lnjunctive
relief. In such the precise question in
volved was determined and Such COM
binations as that disclosed by the affi-
davits filed by plaintiff herein were held
unlawful
Continuing. Justice Gould says:
1t is not surprising that there is so lit
tie difference of opinion among the courts
upon the question involved. The conclu-
sion reached is based upon an apprecia-
ton of the fundamental rights of free men
IN free country. In a work on trade
unions 1t is said: Every person has a
right under the law as between himself
and his fellow-subjects to full freedom in
dispoSing of his own labor or his own
capital according to hts will. II follows
that every other person is subject to the
correlative duty arising therefrom, and is
tod frnrr Ha.Sf rg.ffA gNF.
fullest exercise of the right which can be
made compatible with the exercise of
similar rights by others
Rights of Defendants.
Defendants have the right, either indi-
vidually or collectively. to sell their labor
10 whom they please. on such terms az;
they please. and to decline to buy plain
tins stoves; they have also the right to
decline to traffic with dealers who handle
plaintiffs stoves. But Sailer Bros for
Instance. have an equal right to buy plain
tins stoves and plaintiff has an equal
right to sell said stoves TO Sailer Bros
and when defendants, and those associa :
I'd with them. combine to interfere with
or obStruct without justifable cause the
freedom of buying and selling which
should exist between plaintiff and Sailer
Bros, they Nnfringe upon the rights OF
both and do an unlawful act. The same
freedom is also the basis of the freedom
of plaintiff and Sailer Bros. to deal with
each other untrammelled by the interfer-
ence of defendants. Such interference is
an unlawful invasion upon the rights OF
plaintiff. Just what constitutes 'justih-
able cause for interference, as rema rked
by Chief Justice Field, remains in some
respects undetermined. Defendants claim
the motive of wishing to better their con.
dition affords such legal Justification: but
this motive Is too remote. as compared
with their immediate motive. which Is tC
show what punishment and disaster nee.
essarily follows defiance of their de-
mands. AS quoted with approval by the
supreme court of Pennsylvania in Purvi.
VS.. Brotherhood.
Alleged Benefits.
True, the defendants contend and ties
tify that their purpose was to benefit theil
own members. This, doubtless. in a sens,
\ Do