Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-11-20
CLOSING ARGUMEN
STOVE COMPANY AND LABOR
FEDERATIoN'S CONTEST.

the Bucks Stove and Range Company of
St. Louis, Mo, today made the closing
argument at the hearing before Justice
Gould. in Equity Court No. =, on the APP
pliCation of the st. Louis concern for an
injunction against the American Fedora
ton of Labor. The matter was taken
under consideration by the court. whosa
decision will be announced later.
The keynote of Mr.. Darlngton's argu-
ment was that the defendants had formed
an illegal comb nation. which it is the
duty of the courts to restrain. He held
that what one person might lawfully DO
is rendered illegal when done by u combi-
nation of men. He declared this case to
be the most important litigation of the
KIND for a third OF u century. the boycott
cases hitherto tried having been mercy
local in application. He pointed out that
the case presented is that OF 2,OUO.UOO
adult men engaged in mechanic arts who
were banded together to act as one man in
withholding their own patronage and that of
all friends and sympathzers from single
industrial enterprise, the business of which
they desire to crush and destroy, unless
thirty-five metal ool.sherS out OF $50 en-
ployes of the Bucks Stove and Range
Company are permitted to decide the
number of hours any of them Should
work.
Mr.. Darlington argued that 1,999.96J of
the men engaged in this boycott have no
personal concern with the hours of labor
of the thirty-five metal polishers, but have
simply banded together under agreement
to attack any employer who refuses to al
low his employees to dictate his mode OF
business.
Right to Boycott Discussed.
If the right to boycott is legal for
combination because the right to with
&c fnr individual
Mr. Darlington pointed out that since an
individual may refuse to sell to any per-
son, with or without motive he may COM
bine with any number of persons for the
same purpose. Therefore he contendeu
that the vast combination now before the
court might refuse to employ single per-
son selected as victim; that it might
fuse to. deal with him or any one who
does deal with him, or to sell him any
thing, even the necessaries of life, or 10
patronize any persons who might have
business intercourse with him.
The question, Mr. Darlington said, was
whether the things complained of are
lawful or. if not, whether they neverthe-
less may <be done without interference on
the part OF the courts and protection of
law.
Labor's Contention.
The labor organizations side of the
controversy was presented by Attorneys
J. H. Ralston and L. c. Spelling
Mr.. Ralston took the general position
that under the common law the court was
not concerned with the motive induc-
ing boycottS and strikes. The question
of motive was eliminated in all other
civil cases, and the Supreme Court has
recognized that in conspiracy cases the
courts could not consider, motives This
left only the question whether the de-
PENDANTS had acted within their rights
or the plaintiff deprived of any legal
rights.
All they had done. Mr.. Ralston de-
c!ared, was to withhold their patronage
from and urge their sympathizers not to
buy products of the boycotted company
and they had right to do this slngly
and in combination as well.
Where courts had denied this right to
act in combination in boycott cases. Mr..
Ralston said. they had not treated men,
bers of unions as equal to other citizens
before the law. Mr. Ralston's argument
was devoted to an advocacy of the prin-
ciple that the common law should apply
to such cases.
Mr.. Spelling's Argument.
Mr.. Spelling sharply disagreed with the
contention of James NJ. Beck of counsel
for the plaintiff. made last Friday, that
In the hearing on applications for tenn
porary injunction the court need not go
tneo the merits OF the controversy. Mr..
spelling declared no pecuniary loss to the
plaintiff could counterbalance a depriva-
ton of constitutional rights and privileges
for single day.
The American Federation Of Labor. he
argued, was simply the name represent
ing number of confed rated organiza-
tions. Such voluntary association, he
he'd. could not enter into such a con-
spiracy as was charged. Whatever was
done in the way of a boycott, he con-
tended. was done by the individuals as in
dividuals If the theory of conspiracy was
tenapie' He denied that there was any
evidence of illegal action or that any.
thing at all had been done except to
have a truthful publication in the Ameri-
can Federationist.