United labor bulletin., 1910-02-04
RIGHT TO BOYCOTT SUSTAINED.
(By M. Grant Iamilton.)


called into question when the Buck Stove
and Range company instituted a sui to
compel the American Federation OF
Labor to cease the publication of the
products of the company in question in
its I'VE Don't Patronize List The prin-
ciple involved in this case is whether or
mot the organizations of labor have the
| legal right by concerted action to puf-
chase or not to purchase. for reason
or for no reason, the products of any es-
Establishment
| The first boycott in American history
was that instituted by the Colonies
against the manufactured products of
Great Britain upon the passage by the
English parliament of the first stamp
act. The boycott resulted in a repeal OF
the act. A second act, however. little
different in form, caused the Colonies to
again place a boycott upon the products
of British manufacturers subscriptions
and bonds being signed by a large major
ity of the merchants to carry to sue
cessful conclusion the boycott.
Conspicuous among the champions OF
this boycott were George Washington,
Peyton Randolph, Patrick Henry, Rich
ard Henry Lee and Thomas Jefferson.
George Washington in letter to his
friend Mr.. Mason, urged that the boy
colt be prosecuted with vigor, even to
the point of refusing to purchase any of
the wares of any merchant who insisted
upon buying the tabooed articles from
British manufacturers. This latter con-
stitutes what is termed the secondary
boycott
The right to boycott has become an
interesting question, inasmuch as the
public in general, as well as the news
papers, has emphatically declared its be-
lief in it.
Paul Thieman, editorial writer for the
Kansas City Post, in the January cath
issue, pertinently summarized the pres
ent anti-meat-eating agitation in its re-
lation to the attitude maintained by labor
unions for the right to boycott. 1t is as
follows
"One of the very interesting features
of the anti-meat crusade has been over
looked. namely the quick and excellent
generalship of the labor unions in seiz
ing an opportunity of decisive benefit to
their cause 1t will be remem-
Washington case, in which national labor
leaders were held to be in contempt OF
court rested upon the relation of free
press and free speech to carrying on
boycott. If boycott, when car
ried on by organizations, contravened the
Sherman antitrust law, and the publicity
of this boycott by printed and spoken
word proved the existence of conspiracy
in restraint of trade, then, in principle
at least, the support of the present meat
boycott by organizations, is contraven-
ton of law and presto! the entire Am
erican newspaper press is found foment-
ing the very act for which the labor lead
ers We're held to be in contempt Of
court 1t is, OF course. impossi-
Bile to prosecute tens and hundreds OF
thousands of persons and their sympa-
thizers and thus the meat boycott ap-
pears to sustain, in the broad sense, at
least, the contention Of the labor unions.
If an act is not unlawful on a
large scale, how can men be held in con.
tempt of court for doing the same thing
on smaller scale? Contempt
of court cannot-in the final sense-be
an agency to penalize acts not wrong IN
themselves. And thus. by a
general public impulse, the lawfulness Of
the boycott is now being established"
+++++
c. w. Post believes in and practices
the boycott. In late issue of American
Industries-the chief reason for the ex-
istence of which seems to be the printing
of anti-union diatrbes and pictures OF
Kirby, Post, Emery and others-that
blatant individual advises advertisers to
boycott the Detroit News and certain
Scripps- McRae newspapers, and declares
that 1--WE have decided not to continue
to supply money to such papers" The
only offense committed by the papers
mentioned is their refusal to coincide
with the views of the union haters and
that they deal fairly as between employ
organized labor men. To quote the News,
the outrageous character of Posts at
tacks on organized labor show him to be
beside himself with rage, and therefore
unable to treat the subject of the rights
of labor from sane standpoint. The