The Washington herald., 1907-12-18

Considered of Great Importance.
Organized labor received a crushing
blow from Justice Gould, of the District
Supreme Court, yesterday.
Labor leaders admit they We're
temporarily staggered. They recovered
promptly, however, and outlined future
plan of battle.
Frank Morrison, secretary Of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor. said It was
probable an appeal would be taken Presi-
dent Gompers VIII announce the details OF
procedure upon his return from New
York in a day or two
Justice Gould in his decision granted an
Injunction enjoining the officers of the
American Federation of Labor from con-
tinuing It's boycott against the Buck Stove
and Range Company. of St. Louis. The
Federation. also. is prohibited from pub
fishing the name of the firm in the "un-
fair list under the caption: I'VE do not
patronize"
An Important Decision.
This action is considered one of the
most important taken in recent years by
a court of justice. 1t is an important
chapter in the conflict between organized
labor and the promoters Of the open
shop"
President GOmpers. in a letter 10 the
unions throughout the country some time
ago. advised the members 10 begin a cam
paign against the sale of the ST Louis
stoves in their cities. He declared there
was no law that could prevent this.
The injunction is a temporary one. and
is intended 70 enjoin the officials OF the
Federation, pending final determination of
the suit
Justice Gould rendered his opinion In
two other cases involving the boycott.
One of these was that Of John Bender. a
local baker, who sought TO anjoin the
local Bakers and Confectioners Union
from prosecuting a boycott against him.
and the other that of W. T Lawton &
Sons. carriagemakers. who sought an in
junction against the Carriage and Wagon
makers Union. Justice Gould stated he
would sign orders permanently enjoining
the unions. as prayed
Boycott OF Products.
In his decision restraining the Ameri-
can Federation Of Labor from boycotting
the products of the Buck Stove and Range
Company. Justice Gould stated that the
affidavits and testimony raised for con-
sideration two questions Of law, VIZ:
First, had the stove company shown the
existence Of an unlawful combination
and conspiracy TO destroy its business.
Second. does the testimony so connect
the defendant. the American Fedora
ton Of Labor, with such combination and
conspiracy as to make it amenabie to the
injunctive power of the court2
Justice Gould quoted at length from
the opinion by Judge Taft now Secretary
TafD on the question of boycott. which
was given while the latter was Circuit
Court judge in Ohio
Upon the first proposition presented"
said Justice Gould. there is little room
Tor 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
II under threat Of being boycotted by
the local organizations affiliated with the
Federation"
in this connection, Justice Gould quoted
from Judge Taft. who defined the mean
ing Of boycott as "a combination of
many TO cause a loss to one person by
coercing others against their will to with
draw from him their beneficial business
intercourse. through threats that unless
others do so. the many viii cause serious
loss to them"
Judge Taft Is Quoted.
This definition was given in March,
1888, by Judge Taft, and. later. in July.
1894, Justice Gould quotes him in con-
necton with such combinations as fol-
lows
Boycotts, though accompanied by vio-
lence or intimidation, have been pro-
nounced unlawful in every State of the
United States where the question has
arisen, unless in Minnesota. and they are
held to be unlawful In England"
since this decision was made Justice
Gould continued bOycOtts have been held
unlawful in Minnesota.
Justice Gould cited a large number OF
criminal prosecutions, actions at law for
damages, and other suits in equity for in
Junctive relief. bearing out the statement
OF the law as to boycotts
Referring TO the interference Of the
American Federation of Labor with the
retail trade of the Buck Company by in
timidating dealers, Justice Gould stated:
The defendants have the right. either
individually or collectively, TO sell their
labor to whom they please, on such terms
as they please, and decline TO buy
plaintiffs Stoves but he held that any
dealer has an equal right to buy the
plaintiffs stoves without interference. and
that when the defendants and those as
sociated with them, combine to interfere
with or obstruct, without justifiabIe
cause, this freedom of buying and selling
they do an unlawful act.
1T is contended," said he, that as
each one Of the defendants mas the right
TO refuse TO patronize the customers Of
plaintiff. unless such customers will dis
continue handling plaintiffs stoves. that,
therefore they may combine in their re-
fusal In other words. that there cannot
be an unlawful combination where. each
member thereof might do, individually,
the thing contemplated, without respon-
sibility 10 the law"
He cited a number of cases to sustain
his opinion that "a combination of two
or more persons with a power to do an
injury they would not possess as indi-
viduals. has always been recognized as
In itself wrongful and Illegal
The Unfair List.
In connection with the contention OF the
Federation-that 20 restrain the publica-
tion Of the Bucks Companys name on