The Washington herald., 1908-02-25
AN EDITORIAL ADDRESS
Organizations or Unions Must
Not Be 0utlawed.
Civil War AnnuIIed Decision of Su-
preme Court and Freed the slaves
at Cost Of Hundreds of Thousands
of Lives, Declares A. T.. of L..
Leader, In Commenting on Ruiz
ing Relative 10 BoycOtts.

The recent decision of the Supreme
Court in the Danbury hatters' case in
which 1t was held that the boycott es-
tab!ished by the Hatters' Union and the
American Federation Of Labor was in
violation OF the Sherman antitrust law.
is the subject OF a significant editorial by
Samuel Gompers, president Of the fedora
ton, in the current issue Of its organ.
The article is headed Labor oFganiza-
tions must not be outlawed." and in
foot note he says:
1T should be borne in paind that there
IS no law, not even court decision, COM
pelling union men or their friends of la
Dor TO buy a Bucks stove or range. No.
Not even to buy Loewe hat"
This is followed by a personal address
TO organized labor and friends, stating
that. in view OF the courts decision,
which must be obeyed. regardless Of
whether or not it is just. and OF the
fact that it made the organization and
the individuals composing it liable to
monetary damages and Imprisonment.
Mr.. Gompers says he feels obliged to
discontinue the publication of the fed
eration's I'VE don't patronize" list.
4 Sweeping Decision.
In the course of the editorial, Mr..
Gompers says that no more sweeping.
far-reaching. and important decision had
ever been issued by the Supreme Court.
The Dred Scott decision" he con-
tinues. did not approach this in scope
and Importance. for it only decreed that
a runaway, slave could be pursued, If
he made his escape into free State.
and his return compelled by all the pow
ers OF the government TO his owner in
a slave state.
Any person who assisted in the escape
Of slave. or who harbored HIM. could
be prosecuted before the courts for a
criminal offense. That cision involved
the few negro slaves, who could make
good their escape from slave-holding
State. The civil war annuIed the decision
OF the Supreme Court and freed the
slaves. II cost the lives of hundreds of
thousands of brave men on both sides.
and emnacipated from chattel slavery
100000 OF slaves. No man now proudly
points to that famous Dred-Scott Supreme
Court decision"
II then goes on 10 say that a study of
the decision reveals some strange pecu-
liarities, among them the fact that the
complaint OF the Loewe Company IS set
forth in full. while the response Of the
union is scarcely referred to; that the
complaint was full of the most glaring
inaccuracies, and misstatements: that
none Of the precedents quoted by the
court, paralleled the case. Quoting from
the opinion OF the reference TO the fact
that seventy out Of eighty-two hat manu.
facturers had accepted the terms of the
union, and that when the Loewe Com
pany declined 10 unionize its factory. the
boycott had been ordered, Mr.. Gompers
says:
The Amazing View.
THE court takes the amazing view that
even the most successful effort of the
hatters' union to obtain and maintain
industrial peace with employers is proof
OF unlawful conduct-that IS conspiracy
and under the sherman antitrust law
unlawful, and punishable by being
D
prisonment. AS matter of fact, neither
the halter nor any other trade ever at
tempted to 'cOerce all manufacturers
against their VIII to make agreements
with the union. Common sense teaches
that voluntary agreement between an
employer and union must be a peaceful
one. All union agreements with employ
ers are voluntary and mutual. No union
could, II it tried force an employer TO
enter into an agreement with it. No
union attempts such unbusiness-like tao
tics The most any union has done is to
decline to buy the products of a firm
which declined to employ union men, and
grant the prevailing rate of wages hours
OF labor, and conditions OF employment.
Supposing they were exercising their con- |
stitutional right Of free speech. union
men have asked their friends and fellow
unionists not TO buy such goods"
The court is in error" saws M
Gompers. 'fn denying its charge that
the American Federation Of Labor had
declared a boycott against the Loewe
Company, II had never indorsed or de-
clared boycott against the company.
In fact, no request for such action in any
llhuutl VI 1DlAi EdU ever Deen made TO
the federation or its officers, directly or
indirectly. by the hatters or any one else.
That company had never been published
in the We don't patronize' list Of the
Court itself realized the evil consequences
We feel Il our duty In the interest of
truth and accuracy he continued. TO
call public attention TO the error OF the
court in charging the American Fedora
ton OF Labor with being a party TO the
action against the Loewe Company. VEL
can hardly believe that the Supreme
Court itself realized the evil consequences,
which may follow this decision under its
construction Of the Sherman antitrust
law, construction never intended by
Congress. 1t may be like the falling peb- |
mics, which dislOdgeS the avalanche.
gringing ruin and destruction upon all in
It's path. Should this be the result. il will