Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1911-01-27
UNEXPECTED TURN IN FEDORA.
TioN OF LABOR AND BUCKS
STOVE CONTROVERSY.
ON APPEAL
WERE READY TO BE MADE
Action in Which American Labor Fed
Grafton Officials Were Ordered I'm
prisoned Reaches It's Final Stage
Both Sides Take Appeal From Low.
or Courts.

Washington. Jan. 27.-The boycott
case OF the Bucks Stove and Range
American Federation Of Labor today
came 10 4 dramatic close in the su-
preme court. which decided it was a
moot question and one that 1t would
not hear.
The opening arguments In the Amer
lean Federation of Labor case were
to be made today. Gompers. Mitchell
and Morrison were present. and the at
torneys were prepared to proceed. The
decision OF the court was unexpec ted
and caused sensation among the par
ties In interest
History Of the Case.
The contending forces started their
ftght 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 limelght by an incidental
one. Now the burning issue Is whether
the principal officials OF the American
Federation OF Labor are to go to jail
Because they failed to obey tho In
junction issued by the district supreme
court in the original case. Samuel
Com pers. president OF the federation. Is
under sentence to serve twelve months
in Jail: John Mitchell. vice pres ident
OF the federation. to serve nine months:
and Frank Morrison. its secretary. to
serve six months.
0nception Of Trouble.
The Bucks Stove and Range Com-
pany was selling stoves and ranges
turnout the United States at the time
the suit began. It was doing business
OF $l.250.000 q year. It complained that
the American Federation OF Labor ana
Its members werc conspiring to ruin
Its business, by means Of q boycott.
The court was asked to grant an in
junction against continuation OF tho
efforts and particularly to restrain the
American Federation OF Labor from
printing in its official organ. the AM
erican Federatfonist. the name Of the
company as being on the "Wc-don't-
patronize-list." The opposition Of the
federation was alleged to be duo to a
strike Of metal polishers in the shops
OF the company.
derationist Enioined.
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
tho holding that the injunction against
the publication Of the company's name
on the we e-don't-patronize-li list
should be effective only when the pub
lication was Sin furtherance OF such a
oOvc0ff Ty 10 oil
that the lower court made distinc-
by the members OF organized labor and
n 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
boycott was held Illegal.
Both Sides Appeal.
Both sides appealed from this decis-
ton The manufacturing company be-
lieved that IT did not go far enough.
and the defendants took the position
that 1t went too far.
The attorneys for tho American n
Federation OF Labor contend that each
one of the defendants had a right to
refuse to pa;roniZc those who dealt
with the stove and range company and
therefore they could combine In refus-
ing. It is said that what was lawful
for ono was lawful wher done In COM
hination This position is attacked as
being opposed TO the liberty TO dispose
OF ors's goods and as being contrary
to the decis ions OF all the states OF the
union. The lower court was divided on
tho point:
Points at Issue.
For the American Federation OF Lab
or. it Is argued that to prohibit the
publication OF the "We- don't patron
ize-list" would be an Interference with
constitutional rights and the freedom
of the press. ON the other hand 1t Is
contended that even n constitutional
part OF a conspiracy prohibited by law.
Still further. II Is argued that bus
mess is not property nor a property
right. but rather a mere abstraction In
capable OF judicial protection. This
proposition IS opposed also.
Before the injunction OF the original
court had been passed on by the high
er court. the Bucks Stove and Range
Company 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 court and held TO be in
contempt. Now 1. is argued In their
behalf that the lower court had not
issued a valid Injunction ana that they
could not be punished therefore. for
disobeying It: that It was not q proper
injunction Is shown. 1t is argued. by
the fact that the higher court modified
II.
Mail Embargo Lifted.
Special to Times. Republican.