The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1911-01-27
IS BEFORE
The HIGHEST
u. S. COURT
Labor Union Officials Fight for
Freedom
Famous Buck Stove and Range
Case Is Started
To Jail or MOTTO JaiIfor Gompcrs
and Others

Washington, Jan. 27.-One of the
most spectacular legal battles ever
waged between capital and labor
reached its final stages today when the
supreme court of the United States
took up for oral argument the famous
litigation by the Bucks Stove and
Range Co. 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
crowded out Of the limelight by an
, incidental one. Now, the burning is
sue is whether the principal officials
OF the American Federation of Labor
are to go to Jail on charges of contempt
Of court.
Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District 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 Federation, to serve
nine months; and Frank Morrison. it's
secretary, to serve six months.
Fighting for the American Fedora
ton Of Labor and it's officials are Alton
B. Parker, former democratic presi-
Dental candidate: Jackson III. Ralston.
Frederick l.. Siddons, William r..
Richardson and John r.. Walker. OBJ
posed to them as representatives OF
the Bucks Stove and Range Co. are
Daniel Davenport and j. J. Darling
ton.
The Bucks Stove and Range Co.
was selling stoves and ranges through
out the United States at the time the
suit began. 1t was doing a business
OF $l,25O,000 a year. II complained
that the American Federation of Labor
and its members were conspiring to
ruin Its business by means of a boy
colt. The court was asked to grant
an injunction against a continuation
OF the efforts and particularly to re-
strain the American Federation of La
Dor from printing in it's official organ.
Ihe American FederatiOnist, the name
or the company as being on the We
don t-patronize- list" The opposition
or the Federation was alleged to bs
due to strike of metal polishers i'm
the shops of the company.
me supreme court of the District
OF Columbia issued the Injunction.
Inc court OF appeals OF the District
modl1ed the decree in several WAYS.
the principal modification being based
on the holding that the Injunction
against the publication of the COM
panys name on the We-don't-patron-
lze-list' should be effective onIv when
the publication was "in furtheranoe
Oh such boycott" In so doing. IL in
commended that the lower court made
a distinction between a boycott of the
company by the members of organ
lzed labor and boycott of the mem
oers against the company's customers
VINO refused to stop dealing with the
company. 1t is urged that only the
second kind of boycott was held III
legal
Both sides appealed from this de-
cision. The manufacturing company
believed that it did not 20 far enough.
ana the defendants took the position
that 1t went too far
The attorneys for the American Fed
Grafton OF Labor contend that each ona
OF the defendants had, right to
patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and there
fore they could combine in refusing. II
Is said that what was lawful for ons
was lawful when done in combination.
This position is attacked as being on
posed to the liberty to dispose of ones
goods and as being contrary to the
CONTINUED ON Page rro,.