The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1911-01-28
HIGHEST COURT
WILL. DECIDE
BOYCOTT CASE
SPECTACULAR FIGHT AGAINST
AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR.
Decision of the Supreme Court Will
Determine Whether or Not Presi-
dent Gompers and Others Go TO
Jail for Contempt.

Washington, Jan. 27.-One of the
most spectacular legal battles ever
Waged between capital and organized
!abor reached its final stages today
when the supreme court of the United
states took up for oral argument the
famous litigation by 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
pefore the supreme court of the Unit
ed States, the main issue had been
crowded out of the limelight by an in
cidental one. Now, the burning is
sue is whether the principal officials
of tie American Federation of La
Dor are to go to Jail on charges of
contempt of court.
Because they failed to obey the
injunction issued by the district SUI
preme court in the original case,
Samuel Gompers. president of the fed
GRAFTON, is under sentence to serve
II months in jail; John Mitchell, vice
president of the federation, to serve
nine months, and Frank Morrison, it's
secretary, to serve six months.
Brilliant Lawyers.
Fighting for the American Fedora
ton of Labor and it's officials are AL
ton B. Parker, former democratic
presidential candidate; Jackson II.
RalstOn, Frederick l.. Siddons, VIM.
ID. Richardson and John T. Walker.
Opposed to them as the representa-
tives of the Bucks Stove and Range
Co., are Daniel Davenport and j. J.
Darlington.
Boycotted Stove Company.
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 $1,250,000 a year. 1t complained
that the American Federation of La
bor and it's members were conspiring
to ruin it's business by means of
Boycott. The court was asked to
grant an Injunction against contin-
uation of the efforts and particularly
to restrain the American Federation
of Labor from printing in it's official
organ, the American Federationist,
the name of the company as being on
the "We-don't-patronize list" The
opposition of the federation was al
legged to be cue to a strike Of metal
polishers in the shops Of the company.
1--WE Don't Patronize."
The supreme court of the District
of Columbia issued the Injunction.
TIE court Of appeals of the district
modified the decree in several ways,
the principal modification being bas-
ed on the holding that the Injunction
against the publication of the COM
pany's name on the I'VE don't patron
ize list should be effective only when
the publication was 'in furth erance of
such a boycott" In so doing. it is con-
tended that the lower court made
distinction between a boycott of the
company by the members of organized
labor and a boycott of the members
against the company's customers who
refused to stop dealing with the COM
pany. It is urged that only the Sec
ond kind Of boycott was held illegal.
Both sides appealed from this deci-
sion. The ma;,nfactluJng company
believed that it did not 90 far enough
and the defendants took the position
that it went too far.