The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1909-03-16
OPINION
IN LABOR CASE
Court of Appeals modi-
fies Former Order
MAY MENTION BUCKS co.
Labor Leaders Cannot BE E,torpe1
From Reference to COncefns-
Leaders lain That They Will BE
Able to Upset Sentence OF Imprf~tn-
mcnt Imposed Upon Them.
(By the Associated Press.

Washington, u. c., March 11.-Tll&
American Federation Of labor here
after may freely refer to the boycott
against the Bucks Stove and Range
Co. Of st. Louis. except by inclusion
in the w Don't Patronize List
This, in substance, of WIDESPREAD
Importance to the labor world, to man
ufacturers and TO newspapers general
Iy, is the sweeping decision handed
down today by the Court Of Appeals
Of the District OF Columbia in the
noted Injunction case of the Bucks
stove and Range Co against the
American Federation of Labor which
has been before the courts of the Dis
trict Of Columbia in various phases
for mo2ths.
In u recent decision b Justica
Gould. of the Supreme Court Of the
District, the American Federation Of
Labor and the officers. Messrs. Goa-
pCrS, Mitchell, Morrison and others
We're enjoined from conspiring to boy
colt the Bucks Stove n Range Co.
ana from printing or publishing or
distributing, through the mails OF
otherwise, any copy Of the Fedora
ZIONIST or other publication referring
to the complainant, its business or
product in the I'VE Don't P~atronize"
or 'tnfair' list.
IL oouit Oh Appears lnOUl1ICtt ana
affirmed the opinion Of Justice Gould.
OF the supreme Court Of the District
OF Columbia. enjoining the American
federation of Labor. Samuel Conlpers
and other defendants from publishing
il the w Don't Patronize" lis. the
name of the Bucks stove and narec
Co.. of st. Louis.
Ihe opinion, which was handed
down by Justice Robb, holds that the
decree OF Judge Gould should heanod-
l1led to the extent that there should
be eliminated from the decree the re-
strlctlon Of the labor organ ana the
other defendants from mentioning
writing, or referring" to the b~usiness
! OF the Bucks Stove and Range Co. on
us customers. Otherwise the decree
Is aI1lfned. The court holds ti1ar the
combination and boycott in further
ance thereof, ard the publication in
the We Don't P~atronize' column IN
ald OF the boycott is illegal.
Inc court held that the defendants
could not be restrained from all Duh-
hcatlons referring to the Bucks S+ova
and Range Co. but only to Su..:, AS . re
made IN ~fursherance of an Illegal bow
colt.
In q partial dissenting opinion. Chic,
'us'lIt - epafd took a strong stand il
upnO1a1n : the freedom of the prasS
lie says that even ssuminr thar ~
p~ubIcatlon Of the complainants nam
IN the " Don't Patronize" colnnr
VI the federationist was a step il
,he formation Of a conspiracy to 60.
cree independent DEALERS into ~refusins
70 nave 1urther business relations Wit
mat company cannot agree that thf
pupIcatlon can be restrained for tina,
reason. Regardless Of its characte,
or purpose, the publication is nro.
tected from restraint, in MY opinion
oy the flrst amendment of the consti
!ueion Whch forbiGs an ylaw abrids.
ing the freedom of the pressn
me Chief Justice held that 9th,
only remedy for hbelous or otherwis,
malclous, wrongful and iniurio,1s ,,,b
ncatlons is by civil action for damage
anu crl1h1naf prosecution. There !,
no power to restrain tho nnh,;aatie. !,