The pioneer express. [volume] (Pembina, Dakota [N.D.]) 1883-1928, 1911-02-03
". 8. SUPREME COURT OPENS
BOYCOTT scAsE-JAiL, OR FREE
DOM FOR eoMPERs ct Al.
BUCKS STOVE LITIGATION
Alton 3. Parker Pleads for Men Ac.
cused Of injunction Con.
tempt-oral Arguments
Being Made.

Washington, d. G. - One of the
most spectacular battles ever waged
between capital and organized labor
reached its final stages when the su-
preme court of the United States took
up for oral arguments the famous litt-
cation by the Bucks Stove and Range
company of st. Louis, Mo-, against the
American Federation of Labor.
The contending forces started their
fight to determine the legality of the
boycott" That was in the supreme
court of the District of Columbia. But
today, when the contest was renewed
before the supreme court of the United
States, the main issue had been crowd
ed out of the limelight by an incidental
one. The burning issue now is whether
the principal officials of the American
Federation of Labor are to go to Jail
pn charges of contempt OF court.
Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District of Co.
lumbta supreme court in the original
case, Samuel Gompers, president of
the Federation, is under sentence to
serve twelve months in Jail; John
Mitchell, vice president of the FEEDER.
alton, to serve nine months, and Frank
Morrison, its secretary, to serve six
months.
Alton Parker on labor's Side.
Fighting for the American Fedora
tion of Labor and it's officials are Al
ion B. Parker, former Democratic pres
tdential candidate; Jackson H. Ralson,
Frederick L. Siddons, William E. Rich
ardson and John T. Walker. Opposed
to them as the representatives of the
Bucks Stove and Range company are
Daniel Davenport and J. ]. Darlington.
The Bucks Stove and Range company
was selling stoves and ranges through
out the United States at the time the
suit began. 1t was doing business
of $1,250,000 year. 1t complained
that the American Federation of Labor
and it's members were conspiring to
ruin its business by means of boy
colt. The court was asked to grant an
injunction against continuation of
the efforts and particularly to restrain
the American Federation of Labor
from printing in it's official organ, the
american Federationist, the name of
the company as being on the Eve
don t-patronize-list." The opposition
of the Federation was alleged to be
due to a strike OF. metal polishers in
the shops of the company.
The supreme court of the District of
Columbia issued the Injunction: The
court of appeals of the district modi.
fled the decree in several ways, the
principal notifications being based on
the holding that the injunction against
the publication of the company's name
on the dont-patronize-list' should
be effective only when the publication
was lin furtherance of such boycott"
In SO doing, it is contended that the
lower court made distinction between
refusing to stop dealing with the COM
pany by the members of organized Ia
tor and a boycott eff the members
against the company's customers who
refused to stop dealing with the COM
pany. 1t is urged that only the second
Kind of boycott was held illegal.
Both sides appealed from the decis-
ion. The manufacturing company be-
1ieved that it did not go far enough,
and the defendants took the position
that it went too far.
Attorneys for the American Fedora
tion of Labor contend that each one
of the defendenas had a right to refuse
to patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and there
fore they eonld combine in refusing. It
is said that what was lawful for one
was lawful when done In combination.
This position is attacked as being op-
posed to the liberty to dispose of ones
goods and as being contrary to the
decisions Of all the states of the union.
The lower court was divided on the
point.
Constitutional Rights Asserted.
Before the Injunction of the original
court had been passed on by the higher
court, the Bucks Stove and Range
company complained that President
Gompers, Vice President Mitchell and
Secretary Morrison had violated its
provisions by commenting publicity on
the effect of the injunction. They were
brought into court and held to be in
contempt. Now it is argued in their
behalf that the lower court had not
therefore they could not be punished
issued valid injunction and that
for disobeying it. That it was not a
Droper Injunction is shown, it is ar.
gued, by the fact that the higher court
modified it.