The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1908-12-25
|, BLOW TO UNION LABOR.

No court decision of recent years.
probably none since the bred Scott
ease was passed upon in the supreme
court has had such monlentous issues
rs the one in which Messrs. Gompers.
Mitchell and Morrison are adjudged
guilty of contempt and sentenced 10
terms Of Imprisonment. Primarily the
the case was a suit FOR injunction
sought by the Buck Stove & Range
company of St Louis TO prohibit the
publication Of tie plaintiff company
in the unfair" list of the official or
gan Of the American Federation OF
Labor and other similar lists OF unions
aff1liated with the federation. Judge
Gould OF the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia granted the injunc-
ton and made 1t permanent. Subse-
quently. Mr. Gompers published an
editorial in the Federation. which was
in issue in the contempt proceedings
and Messrs. Mitchell and Morrison
were cited for participation in the pun
lication in proceedings of the Fedora
ton and for utterances which were al
legged TO be in contempt of the court.
The hearing has been fought with
all the earnestness demanded by the
Importance Of the case. All Of the de-
contempt and took refuge behind the
constitutional provisions guaranteeing
freedom of the press and freedom OF
speech. The court adjudged them
guilty and arraigned them most bit
terly for deliberately violating the o.
der Of the court and conspiring to de-
stroy the plaintiff company's business
in spite OF the order
Mr. Gornpers is sentenced TO serve
one year, Mr.. Mitchell nine months and
Mr.. Morrison six. Pending an appeal
to the supreme court Of the United
states, all three are at liberty on bonds.
By the terms of the two decisions
Judge Goulds in the original injunc-
ton proceedings and Judge Wright's
Dor organizations to declare and carry
on a boycott is held TO be a conspiracy
in restraint of trade and commerce
among the states and depriving the
victim. of his property lin this case the
good will Of his business) without due
process of law. II the decisions are
upheld the boycott can no longer ne
used except at the risk OF conspiracy
proceedings. and organized labor will
be deprived OF one of its most powerful
weapons in trade disputes. And if the
contempt sentences are sustained the
way VIII be open Ter che direct and
immediate punishment by imprison-
ment Of those officials responsible for
declaring and pursuing a boycott
II will be seen that the issues involve
tremendous interests on both sides Or
sanized labor. including millions of
union men, has depended upon the
boycott for much Of its coercive power
II has contended that labor had the
right in self-defense to designate open
its f"i~1ds and SIS enemies by the
'sair'' ana unfair lists: Tint TO deny
this privilege is to override the fun
damental human right OF the individual,
to free speech and free press. and
that the remedy sought. an injunction.
could not properly be applied
On the other side are those manufac-
turing interests which contend for the
right Of the employer to choose his en-
pIoyes without restriction, to name the
hours Of employment. the wages and
the terms without coercion. In other
words, the FINAL issue is between the
open and the closed shop. union and
non-union principles. The decision In
the conspiracy case is based upon the
antitrust law. which the labor leaders
aver was never intended TO include la
Dor. In effect. it follows closely the
English common law which holds that
an agreement of number to injure a
mans business is conspiracy and pun
ishable as such
II is worth noting that whereas the
|id English law which prevailed until
recently made il possible for the sub
Ject OF q boycott 10 recover heavy
damages from union. recent enact
aaents have relieved the English unions
from di-eci penalties Of this sort. This