The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1911-01-31
END BOYCOTT CASE
Silt Against A. F. of [.
Thrown Out of Court.
CLIMAX OF LONG STRUGGLE
Contempt Case Against GOmpsrs,
Mitchell and Morrison Alone 10
Be Heard by the q. s. su-
preme Tribunal.
CLIMAX OF LONG STRUGGLE

Washington, Jan. 2S. The boy
colt" case OF the Bucks Stove and
Range company. OF st. Louis, against
the American Federation of Labor
came to a dramatic close in the SUI
prome court Of the United States
when that body decided ii was moot
question, and one that 1t would not
hear.
Then the court proceeded to hear
arguments on the contempt case
which arose out of the boycott case.
The court arrived at the conclusion
that the boycott" case was moot, or
one leaving nothing substantial to be
decided, when attorneys on both sides,
being questioned, informed the court
that an agreement had been entered
into between the company and the
Federation for the settlement of Their
. disputes.
Chief Justice White announced that
the court considered that this LETT
nothing but the question of costs to
be determined and that nothing re-
NAMED for the court to enjoin II the
case was passed upon finally. 1t was
said that the case could not be consid-
cred simply to determine who should
pay the costs.
! The cOntending forces started their
fight to determine the legality Of the
boycott" That was in the supreme
court OF he District of Columbia. But
when the contest was renewed before
the supreme court OF the United
States the main issue had been erowi-
ed out of the limelight by AN inciden-
tai one.
The burning issue was whether the
principal officials Of the American
Federation Of Labor were to 60 10
Jail on charges Of contempt of court.
This phase OF the case will continue
for oral argument.
| Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District OF Co
I mmbia 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 Feie a.
ticn. TO serve nine months, and Frank
Morrison, its secretary, to serve six
months.
The opening argument was made
more spectacular than usual by the
! presence in court of Gompers, Mitch
ell and Morrison, as well as other n
Dor leaders.
The argument was started, before
/ the court decided not to hear the
case, by ]. ]. Darlington, who first
took up the boycott case. The boy
colt, he said, had originated as the
result Of a strike of forty out OF sew
enty-fve employees of the Bucks Stove
and Range company, at St. Louis. In
reality, he declared. the object OF the
boycott" was to require the company
to unionize its shops.
Beginning Of the Csc.
The Bucks Stove a, panoo cam.
pany was selling ste ros and ranges
throughout the UnXoS states a. the
time the suit beg II complained
that the AMERICA Federation OF La
DOT ana its nisYbers were conspi-ing
- ~ It's business by means OF
/ boycott.
The court was particularly askel to
restrain the American Federation Oh
Labor from printing in its Qfitial Or
gan. the American Federationist, the
rame of the company as being on the
I'VE don't patronize list"
The supreme court of the District
of Columbia issued the injunction.
The court of appeals of the District
modified the decree in several ways,
the chief modification being based on
the holding that the injunction against
the publication of the company's name
on the 1--WE don't patronize list
should be effective only when the
publication was lin furtherance of
such boycott"
The attorneys for the American
Federation of Labor contended that
each one of the defendants had
right to refuse to patronize those VINO
dealt with the stove and range COM
pany and therefore they could com
bine in refusing. 1t was said that
what was lawful for one was lawful
when done in combination.
Before the injunction of the origi-
nal court had been passed ON by the
higher court the Bucks Stove and
Range company complained that Com
pers, Mitchell and Morrison had VIC
lated its provisions by commenting
publicly on the effect of the injunc-
ton. They we're brought into court
and held to be in contempt.
II was then argued in their behalf
that the lower court had not issued
J valid injunction, and that they could
not be punished, therefore, for DISC
heVing IL