The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1911-01-27
WON'T HEAR IT.
Supreme Court Brings Boycott
Case to Abrupt End.
Oral Argument Was Slated for
TOday's Session.
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
Both Sides Have Appealed From
Previous Judgment.
Started by a Strike of Metal
POlishers Long Ago.

Washington, Jan. 27.-The boycott
case of the Bucks Stove and Range
company of st. Louis against the. Amer
lean Federation of Labor today came
to dramatic close in the supreme court
Of the United States which decided it
was a question it would not hear.
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 crowded out of tho limelight by
an incidental one. Now the burning
issue is whether the principal officials
of the American Federation of Labor
are to go to Jail on charges of con-
tempt of court.
Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District su-
preme court in the original case, Sam
uel Gompers, president Of the fedora
ton, is under sentence to serve twelve
months in Jail; John Mitchell, vice
president of the federation, to serve
nine months. and Frank Morrison, its
secretary, to serve six months
Array of Legal Talent.
Fighting for the American Fedora
t1on OF Labor and its officials are Alton
B. Parker, former Democratic presi-
Dental candidate; Jackson H. Ralston,
Frederick L. Siddons, William E.
Richardson and John T. Walker Op-
posed to them as the representatives
of the Bucks Stove and Range COM
pany are Daniel Davenport and J. j.
Darlington.
The Bucks Stove and Range com
pany was selling stoves and ranges
throughout the United States at the
time the suit began. It was doing a
business of $1,250,000 a year. 1t COM
planned that the American Federation
spring to ruin its business by means
of a boycott The court was asked
to grant an Injunction against a con-
tfnuation of the efforts and particular
" to restrain the American Federation
of Labor from printing in its official
organ, the American Federationist. the
name of the company as being on the
We-don't-patronize list" The oppo-
sition of the federation was alleged to
be due to strike of metal polishers
in the shops of the company
The supreme court of the District of
court of appeals of the District modified
the decree in several ways, the principal
modification being based on the holding
that the injunction against the publication
h9s ond bs on tse Wedon
when the publication was s'in furtherance
of such a boycott" In so doing, it is
distinction between a boycott of the com
pany by the members of organized labor
and boycott of the members against
the company's customers who refused to
stop dealing with the company 1t is
urged that only the second kind of boy
colt was held Illegal.
Both Sides Appealed.
Both sides appealed from this decision.
The manufacturing company believed that
1t did not go far enough, and the defend
ants took the position that it went too
far.
The attorneys for the American Fedora
ton of Labor contend that each one of
the defendants had a right to refuse to
patronize those who dealt with the Stove
and Range company and therefore they
Goulo h @ coinplne IN feruslng IS sad that
| done in combination. This position is at
tackled as being opposed to the liberty to
| dispose of ones goods and as being con-
trary to the decisions of all the states OF
the union. The lower court was divided
| on the point.
For the American Federation of Labor,
it is argued that to prohibit the publica-
ton Of the .We-don't-patronize-list'
tional rights and the freedom of the
press. On the other hand it is contended
that even a constitutional right may be
so used as to be made a part of a con
spiracy prohibited by law.
Still further, it is argued that business
rather a mere abstraction incapabie ooi oi
judicial protection. This proposition Is
| opposed also.
Before the injunction of the origina
court had been passed on by the higher
court, the Bucks Stove and Range com
pany complained that President Gompers
| Vice President Mitchell and Secretary
Morrison had violated its provisions By
commenting publicly on the effect of the
injunction. They were brought into couri
| and held to be in contempt. Now it is
argued in their behalf that the lower court
had not issued valid injunction and thai
/ they could not be punished therefor, fol
disobeying it. That it was not a propei
| injunction is shown, it is argued, by the
| fact that the higher court modified it