The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1910-03-18
BOYCOTT IN HISTORY
American Public Believes In Its
Justice.
WITNESS THE STAMP ACT.
Washington, Henry and jefferson Re-
fused to Purchase Tabooed Articles.
Newspapers of Today Stand on SINH
lar Ground.

fused to Purchase Tabooed Articles.
Newspapers of Today Stand on SINH
lar Ground.
| The right Of labor organizations to
abstain from purchasing the products
of establishments deemed unfair to
them was called into question when
the Bucks Stove and Range company
instituted suit to compel the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor to cease the
publication of the products Of the com
pany in question in its I'VE Don't Pat
ronize List" The principle involved
In this case is whether or not the or
CARNATIONS of labor have the legal
right by concerted action to purchase
or not to purchase for a reason or for
no reason the products of any estab-
lishment.
The first boycott In American his
tory was that instituted by the colo
MES against the manufactured prod
ucts of Great Britain upon the passage
by the English parliament of the first
stamp act. The boycott resulted In
repeal of the act. A second act, how
ever, a little different in form, caused
the colonies to again place a boycott
upon the products of British manufac-
turers, subscriptions and bonds being
signed by large majority of the mer-
chants to carry to successful conclu-
sion the boycott.
Conspicuous among the champions
of this boycott We're George Washing
ton, Peyton Randolph, Patrick Henry.
Richard Henry Lee and Thomas JEFF
ferson. George Washington in letter
to his friend Mr. Mason urged that
the boycott be prosecuted with vigor,
even TO the point of refusing to pur
chase any of the wares of any mer-
chant who insisted upon buying the
tabooed articles from British manufac-
turers. This latter constitutes 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
DeIleI III II.
Paul Thieman, editorial writer for
the Kansas City Post. i'll the issue Of
Jan. 81 pertinently summarized the
present anti-meat eating agitation in
its relation to the attitude maintained
by labor unions for the right to boy
colt. 1t is as follows:
"One of the very interesting fea-
lures of the antitrust crusade has been
overwhelmingly, the quick and ex-
cellent generalship Of the labor unions
in Selling an opportunity Of decisive
benefit to their cause. 1t will be re-
membered that the issue in the cele-
brated Washington case, in which ma
tional labor leaders We're held to be In
contempt of court, rested upon the re-
lation of free press and free speech to
carrying on q boycott. If boycott,
when carried on by organizations, con-
travened 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 VI Inc ljIeSeul uicdl DOS
colt by organizations is i'll contraven-
ton Of law and, presto, the entire
American newspaper press is found
fomenting the very act for which the
labor leaders were held to be in con
tempt of court. 1t is, Of course, impos-
sible to prosecute tens and hundreds
of thousands Of persons and their
sympathizers, and thus the meat boy
colt appears to sustain, in the broad
sense at least. the contention of the
labor unions. If an act is not unlaw
full on large scale how can men be
held in contempt of court for doing
the same thing on a smaller scale?
Contempt of court cannot, In the final
sense, be an agency TO penaliZe acts
not wrong in themselves. And thus
by Il general public impulse the law
fulness of the boycott is now being es-
tablished. Grant Hamilton, General
Organizer of A f. OF L. in Minneapo
lis Union Advocate.