The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-07-21
4 Pivotal QUESTION.

/ be surrender Of the Bucks Stove and Range
Company to the demands of organized labor
Is instance Of the sort of doubtful value
Upon this particular dispute, which has ragged
IN the courts for years, and which has been made
the occasion Of passionate argument for and
against the principle of trades unonism Is
practically applied to business conditions has
hung the hope of definite legal determination
OF the status of the oftentires absolutely conflict
ing claims of Capital and Labor. The
President of the Bucks Company was James W.
Van Cleave, president also of the association of
American manufacturers. In the case Of his own
company he waged particularly aggressive war
fare for the open shop" for which his associa-
ton contends. The Bucks Stove company there
fore became the axis upon which the entire con-
tention turned Its fight for its right to do bust
ness without regard TO Union labor and in safety
from the alleged right of Union labor to retaliate
against il by throwing adverse influences against
its business involved the direct issue which policy
has SO long avoided A compromise in this case
is, therefore. in our point of view disappointing
The issue viii be further delayed. 1t will all
lave to be gone over with again. There has been
long fight, at great expense at the cost Of many
wounds for no tangible result. There is loss
not only to the association Of manufacturers, not
onlw.to organized labor, but to the public For
there is nothing 50 hurtful to business as un
. certainty; and there is nothing so dangerous to
contending interests as vague demarcation of
legal rights Decidedly, the battle having been
joined, it had been better had it been brought to
the point Of captulation by one side, or the other
side.
There is one matter growing out of this
particular strike which compromise ought to
4 he permitted 10 affect, which no agreement be-
tween the parties can logically or legally affect
That is the contempt proceedings brought against
Samuel Gompers. John Mitchell, and Frank
Morrison for violation of a restraining order
pending the determination of an application for
permanent injunction against boycott of the
products of the stove company by organized
labor. Forbidden to publish the name Of the
company as unfair these high labor officials
undertook deliberately to do so, thereby setting
new mark in the challenge which Labor" is
iinging to the world BY such action they took
further step in the scheme of what is evidently
a well-planned revolution in thought and senti
ment They deliberately set themselves above
the court, rel ying for their defense upon the prn
ciple Of "free speech, even when the speech"
in question in the interest of an organized at
tempt to deny the freedom of others to do bust
reason, Messrs Gompers, Mitchell, and Morrison
representatives of an army OF millions Of work
ing men, predicate their competency to swing this
great force to the uses of the boycott. According
to all legal precedent the boycott is illegal it
is asserted however, that where the boycott con-
sists in the spoken or written word, the right TO
use it is projected by the right to free speech
no matter what the consequences Of the exer-
else of such right upon the rights and liberties
of others. In the light Of the issue thus drawn,
it is of entire mmaterialitv whether the Jail
sentences imposed shall be executed or not Con
sidering the Importance of the point raised
Mitchell Gompers and Morrison become in
significant points in industrial drama the
compromise of the particular dispute out of
which the question grew is nothing to the re-
suit; the principle remains cold bloodedYpropo
sition divorced from all the facts. t.
For these reasons, it is to be hoped that the
contempt proceedings will be prosecuted with
the vigor which their Importance calls for They
are entirely extraneous TO the original dispute.
They involve directly the power of the courts and
the privileges Of parties, whom the 6ourts
assume jurisdiction. Fairly tested and courage
ously decided, they will serve 10 set at rest for
all time the question that was supposed 10 be
closed. but which the respondents have ndvisely
1 and deliberately reopened, tho question of the
power supposed to be inherent in the courts to
enforce their DEGREES pending final determination
Of suits. Should the practically immaterial in
cident of settlement between the parties out of
court be permitted TO influence tbs matter of the
courts right TO protect itself the result would be
calamity. 1t would leave unsettled grave point
calling aloud for settlement. II would make for
doubt for uncertainty, for further weakening
Of tho courts, for further and more far reaching
4ss