The news-democrat. (Providence, R.I.) 1906-1909, 1907-12-18

Washington, Dec. 1S--n was crushing
decision In legal condemnation OF the boy
cott as practiced by the American Fedora
tion of Labor which was handed down by
Justice Ashley NJ Gould in the supreme
court OF the District of Columbia yester-
day. when ne granted temporary injunc-
ton restraining the federation from MAIN
tanning its boycott against the Buck
Stove and Range company OF st. Louis.
The case is notable, since II is the first
OF the kind which has been fought to a
conclusion In the District of Columbia,
where the Federation of Labor maintains
its headquarters
Van Cleave. the president of the COM
pany which brought the suit. is also
the president OF the National Association
OF Manufacturers and the bitterness OF
the fight which the federation made In
defence of the suit was due in large
measure to that fact
The injunction granted is designed to
suspend the boycott pending decision OF
sudt brought by the Buck Stove and
Range company against the federation.
it's officials and the 10000 900 members of
ITS affiliated unions on the ground that
they sought to destroy the business OF
the company because n would not yield
TO the demands Of labor unions.
The issuance OF the temporary injunc-
ton is a point In favor OF the company
which seeks TO stop the boycott, not only
on the ground that IL Ia Illegal under
the common law, bit. also. II is n com
binatfon in restraint OF trade and there
fore Illegal under the Sherman antitrust
law, which frequently has been invoked
against combinations OF capital.
This and other suits now pending in
VARIOUS federal courts win go far TO
determine whether or not oppressive com
binatlons or labor are subjected 10 the
same legal restrictions as combinations
OF capital.
The question on which this case turns
Is whether or not combinations OF labor
have the right by the use OF their united
enort and by any means within their
power TO lay an embargo on the btisi :
ness OF an employer who refuses TO allow
them TO dtrtate his mode OF business and
by boycott 10 harass. injure or destroy
his business
In rendering his decision Judge Could
said that the affidavits and testimony IN
the case raised for consideration two
questions of law: First. has the plaintiff
shown the existence OF an unlawful com
binaton and conspiracy to destroy his
business; and, second. does the testimony
so connect the defendants or any OF them
with such combination and conspilary as
to mike them ancnable to the ini,Inctiye
power OF the court?
Judge Gould quoted frequently from
the opinion OF Secretary Taft on the
question OF boycott which was given
while the latter was circuit Judge I'm ohio.
Upon the first proposition presented .
said Judge Gould, "there Is little room,
for argument or discussion There is no
attempt TO deny that the plaintiffs Gus.
toners even those under contract have
refused To continue business dealings
with Il under threat OF being boycotted
by the local. organizations afflicted with
the federation"
1T II contendcd," continued Judge
Gould. "that as each one OF the defend.
ants has tho right 10 refuse 10 ratroniz,
the customers OF the plaintiff unless such
customers VIII discontinue handline
plaintiffs stoves that therefore they may
combine In their refusal: i'm other word $
that there cannot be an unlawful com
blnation where each member Thereof
might do individually the thing contem
plated without responsibility 10 the law
with regard TO the second legal poinr
which. the Judge said. was raised by th,
evidence and. affidavits presented. as e
whether the defendants were 80 connect
cd with the alleged combination and con
spiracy as TO make them amenable 10 th,
injunctive power OF the court, Judg,
Gould said:
"The record in this case Leaves nC
doubt that tho plaintiff has been and still
Is the object OF n boycott. using that IL
the most obnoxious sense namely an un.