The Calumet news. [volume] (Calumet, Mich.) 1907-1938, 1911-01-27
Supreme Court Decides BucksStove
u Range Case is Moot Ques-
tion and Will Not
Hear II
Big LABOR LEADERS INVOLVED
Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison Who
Were Under Sentence For Con-
tempt of Court May Es-
cape Imprisonment.

Washington, ID. c., Jan. 21-The
Boycott case of the Buck Stove &
Range company of st. Louis against
the American Federation of Labor to-
day came to a dramatic close in the
supreme court, which decided it was
moot question and one that 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 to be re-
newed before the Supreme Court of the
United States, the main issue had been
crowded out of the llmelight by an in
cidental one. The burning issue was
whether the principal officials of the
American Federation of Labor were to
so to Jail on charges of contempt 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 was 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.
~iorbf No
tion of Labor and its officials were AL
ton Ii. Parker, former democratic pres
idential candidate; Jackson VI. Raj
ston, Frederick j.. Siddons, William f.
Richardson and John r. Walker. Op-
posed to them as the representatives
Of the Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany were Daniel Davenport and ]. j.
Darlington.
Boycott Was First Charge.
The Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany was selling stoves and ranges
throughout the United States at the
time the suit began. II was doing a
business of $1,250,0OO a year 1t COM
planned that the American Federation
VI A<dbpi anu iNS NNiC NOil-
spring to ruin its business by means
of a boycott. The court was asked to
grant an injunction against a continu-
alton of the efforts and particularly
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
I'VE 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 Columbia issued the injunction. The
Court of Appeals of the District modi-
fled the decree in several ways, the
principal modification being based on
the holding that the injunction against
on the "We-don't-p -patronize- list"
should be effective only when the pub
lication was ain furtherance Of such n
boycott" In so doing, IL is contended
that the lower court made distinction
between a boycott of the company by
the members of the organized labor
and boycott of the company by the
members against the company's GUS
toners who refused to stop dealing
with the company IL was urged that
only the second kind of boycott was
held illegal.
Both Sides Appealed.
Both sides appealed from this decis-
ion. The manufacturing company be-
lleved that it did not go far enough.
and the defendants took the position
that II went too far.
The attorneys for the American
Federation of Labor contended each
one of the defendants had right to
refuse to patronizc those who dealt
therefore they could combine in re-
fusng 1t was said that what was law
full for one was lawful when done in
combination. This position was attack
ed as being opposed 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.
For the American Federation of La
Dor, IL was argued that to prohibit the
publication of the "We-don't patron
ize-list would be an interference with
the constitutional rights and the free
dom of the press. on the other hand
il was contended that even a constitu-
tional right may be so used as 20 be
made n part of conspiracy prohibit
ed by law.
Many Sided Situation.
still further, IL was figured that busi-
ness was not property. nor a property
right, but rather a mere abstraction
incapable of judicial protection. This
proposition was also opposed
Before the injunction Of the original