Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-12-18
Temporary Injunction Against
the Federation of Labor.
ITS AGENTS AND SERVANTS
President and Other Officers of Or
ganization Named.
SOME OBJECTIONS ovERRULED
Attorney for the Federation Argued
Against Form and Scope
of the Order.

Justice Gould in Equity Court No. .
today signed a temporary injunction
against the American Federation of
Labor and the other defendants named
, in the suit instituted by the Buck Stove
and Range Company, with the exception
of the Electrotype Molders and Finish
! ers' Union,,- No. II. The name of this
union was stricken from the order as pre-
pared by counsel for the complainant
at the instance of Attorney J. II. Ralston,
who made the point that the allegations
Of the bill did not properly bring this
union before the court and therefore
no injunctive order of the court could
be binding on it.
In answer to other objections put for
ward by Attorney Ralston to the form of
the order as prepared Justice Gould made
it plain that he had no intention of as
. Stunning jurisdiction beyond the limitation
. of the District of Columbia, and that his
in1unctve order would apply only to
. those persons before the court by, proper
process.
He stated. however that the wording
or the order should not be so limited as
lhat tnoSe acting for the defendants out
side OF the jurisdiction might escape the
: provisions of the United States statute
. which gives jurisdiction both OF the per-
son and subject matter to a local court
where the injunction might be violated.
Not Again Ignorant Persons.
In answer TO the objection of counsel
Tor the defendants that the language of
the order should not be too broad. but
should specifically state what the defend
ants were enioined from doing. Justice
Gould said the order was not issued
against ignorant persons. but against
those well informed as to the law and
10
occasion to praise an editorial written
recently by President Gompers on bow
cott1ng. which he said he had read with
much pleasure. He said Mr. Gompers
made 1t evident that he knew the law
governing this matter and also that he
had his own ideas of what the law should
he. To give in affirmative language a
limitation to the injunctive order, the
court said. might render the order nuga-
tory. owing to the time of the existence
or the unlawful combination. which had
heen in active operation for a number of
months.
The evidence he said had satisfied him
Of the existence of conspiracy to seek
out third parties and prevent them from
puyins the product of the range COM
pany. He expressed doubt as to his
among the defendants that they them
selves individually or collectively would
not purchase the company's product. This
question of the simple combination. how
him. as the affidavits had shown the
existence of the determination to coerce
third parties. which under the law and
the decisions, is plainly illegal.
Objections overruled
Mr.. Ralston. for the defendants. OBJ
Jected to the phrase agents. servants,
ETC.. which appeared in the order as
prepared. While he admitted these
words to be part of the usual injunc-
tive order. he urged that. owing to the
peculiar situation OF This case. which
hibition persons residing in various
parts of the United States. the order
should not include those persons over
whom the courts Jurisdiction could not
6S9 enforced. The injunction. he said,
Ys>purely personal. and operative only
INo1 persons within the District of Co.
lSAsb1a having proper notice.
Underlying 9his request Justice Gould
rointed out that should any person out
sideAof the territory of the District of
Srcrn the defendants. or any of them.
disobey the restraining order. while
the courts punitive power could not
reach the. person so violating its order
1t coulf/and unquestionably would call
Mount the defendant within this
Jurisdiction upon whose instructions
the violation had been committed
\ Substance of the Order.
He then signed the order. which reads:
This cause coming on to be heard upon
the petition OF the complainant for an in
junction pendente lite. as prayed In the
bill and the defendants return TO the
! rule to show cause issued upon the said
petition having been argued by the solic-
7tors Tor the respective parties, and duly
cQpsidered. it is thereupon. by the court
TIM 18th day of December. A. D. 1907. or
deted that the defendants. the American
Federation Labor. "a
Frank Morrison, John B. Lennon. James
Duncan. John Mitchell. James OConnell
Max Morris, Dennis \. Hayes. Daniel ].
Keefe, William d. Huber. Joseph f. Val
sntine. Rodney l.. Thixton, Clinton o.
Buckingham, Herman C. Pope Arthur
j Williams. Samuel r. Cooper and Ed
ward IL. Hickman. their and each of their
agents. servants, attorneys. confedera tes
and any and all persons acting in aid of
or in conjunction with them or any of
them. and they hecf5y are restrained and
enjoined until the final decree in said
cause from conspiring, agreeing or com
htnlng in any manner TO restrain.
Obstruct destroy the business of
the complainant or to prevent the
complainant from carrying the same
without interference from them or any
of them. and from interfering in any man
ner with the sale of the product of the
compliments factory or business by de-
PENDANTS or by any other persons, firm or
corporation. and from declaring or threat
ant, or its business. or the product of It's;
factory. or against any person. firm or
corporation engaged in handling or SELL
ing the said product. and from abetting.
aiding or assisting in any such boycott.
and from printing. issuing, publishing or
distributing through the mails or in any
other manner any copies or COPY of The
American Federation, or any other
printed or written newspaper, magazine,
circular, letter or other document or in
Strument whatsoever which shall contain
or in any manner refer to the name OF
the complainant, its business or its prod
uct in the We Don't Patronage or the
Unfair list of defendants or anv OF
them, their agents, servants attorneys
confederates. or other person or persons
acting in aid of in conjunction with them
or which contains any reference to the
complainant. its business or product I'm
connection with the term unfair or with
the We Don't Patronage list, or with
any other phrase word or words of similar
import. and from publishing or otherwise
circulating, whether in writing or orally
any statement or notice of any kind OF
character whatsoever. calling attention tc
the complainants customers or dealers
or ttradesmen, or the public, to any how.
colt against the complainant; its business
or its product. or that the same are n,