Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1907-12-18
BOYCOTT IS ILLEGAL
Temporary Order is Given Against
Federation of Labor.
COURT SAYS LAW rs PLAIN
Long Line Of Precedents Quo lass
it as COnspirac. "
DECISION IS FAR RE ~.
Order Directed Against 0rgsnizA z
and It's Officers.
FINAL HEARING COMES SOON
FINAL HEARING COMES SOON
Case TO he Heard on It's Merits when
it VIII Ne Appealed to Supreme
Court of the United
states.

Louis against the American Federation Of
Labor, Involving the right Of labor to
boycott business houses which labor organ
isations regarded as unfair to them, Jus
tice Gould OF tho District of Columbia
equity court today granted a temporary
Injunction asked for by President Van
Cleve Of the stove company TO prohibit
the federation from continuing to boycott
the company pending a final settlement of
the case.
A bill IN equity was filed by the company
last August for a permanent injunction re-
straining the Federation from boycotting
the Company and putting It on the unfair
list IN the Federations official organ and
later a supplemental bill was filed, charg
ing that Notwithstanding the pending pro-
ceedinRs the Federation was still actively
engaged in pressing the boycott and a
temporary injunction. passed upon today,
was asked for
The case win now proceed to a final
hearing which is not expected before early
next spring The court in entering its
volumlnous finding explained that there
were several points which he had not taken
ZIP in the present decision, including the
present question whether the boycott is
within the inhibition Of the interstate COM
merce law. Owing to the preliminary ma
ture OF today's proceedings there was no
notice Of appeal by the counsel for the
Federation,
Judge Taft Quoted.
The court made numerous citations of de-
cisions IN cases Involving similar issues
including references to rulings by Judge
Taft. the present secretary OF war then
judge of the superior court. in the action Of
the Toledo Street Railway versus Penn
Company" and proceedings brought in var
ieus states,
A.
surprising that there little difference
OF opinion among the courts upon the
question involved and that the conclusion
that such combinations as that disclosed
by the affidayts filed by the Buck Stove
company IN this case were held 20 be un-
lawful was based upon an application OF
tiie fundAnlental rights OF free men IN. a
free country. He said there was little
room for argument or discussion of the
question whether the plaintiff company had
shown the existence OF an unlawful combi-
nation ana conspiracy to destroy It's bust
ness and the record leaves no doubt that
the plaintiff has been and still is the or
gaEzatlon OF a boycott during that term.
"Iu tile most obnoxious sense. It is an un-
lawful conspiracy to destroy it's business.
such a conspiracy as has received the con-
demnation OF every federal and state
court in the country before which it has
heen brought for criminal action, legal re-
dress or equitable injunction"
DecisIOn Far-ReRching.
The American Federation Of Labor is not
only named as defendant in this case. but
also President Gompers and Secretary Nor
rlson. individually. as well as nine others
of the executive council of the federation,
and also the Electrotypers,' Moders
and Finishers union No II, together with
certain individuals composing its officers
and executive board.
The Buck Stove and Range company,
which runs an open shop. alleged that the
labor organization placed its name on the
unfair and I'VE don't patronize' lists
IN the labor publications and that the boy
eott also was carried on through thou
sands Of circular letters to the company's S
customers and the public generally and by
threatening the eompanys customers with
loss OF labor, patronage and business.
Mr. Gompers contended that the unfair
list had been in use almost from the fed
erations organization; that 1t imputed
simply inequitable or dscriminative treat
ment against organized labor. President
Van Cleave OF the stove company. It was
charged discharged as an employe, the
president OF st. Louis local union and
threatoned 10 discharge all other mem
bers of the union committee of employees
that sought "a deal with him.
The court held that the contention of
the defense. that there cannot be unlawful
combination where each member thereof
might do individually the thing contem-
plated without responsibility to the law.
has much OF plausibility and seems TO
evade accurate analysis"
wrongful Use OF Combination.
Justice Gould cited authorities, however,
20 show that a combination Of two or more
persons with such an intent and under
circumstances that give them, when 81
combined. a power.to do an injury they
would not possess as individuals acting
Jointly, has always been recognized in IT,
self wrongful and Illegal AS to the con-
tention that to restrain the publication OF
name on the unfair list would infringe
the constitutional rights Of the defendants
and be an assault upon the freedom OF
the press and that plaintiffs redress, n al
all, was by action for libel and that equity
would not enjoin the publication OF the
libek Justice Gould said:
"Ail this would have merit. II the act oi
the defendants IN making such publication
stood alone. unconnected with other con
duct both preceding and following Il, But
Il is not an isolated fact; Il is an act o.
conspiracy to destroy plaintiffs business.
etc. The decision quotes from the records
IN eonuaventon Of the federation's claim
that II Is a federation or organizations and
has no individual membership.
OriEfn Of Conspiracy.
The conspiracy originated. the cour
said, In the action by the Metal Polishers
local union No. IS IN ST. Louis In the fan o.
1906. q body federated with the American
Federation Of Labor through the Interna
tion Polishers uuion. When this bod,
acted Il did not use this term boycott.
but the more euphonlstic terms Of -unfsir'
and I'VE don't patronize" But the cour
holds that whatever the term used. IN,
boycott was the eject intended an,
tcOntinusd on second Pas,