Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1911-01-28

Washington, Jan, II. One of the
most spectacular legal battles ever
wa.ed between capital and organized
labor reached it's 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 company, of ST. Louis, MO.
against the American Federation OF
Labor.
The contending forces started their
fight, to determine the legality OF the
~boykott." That was in the supreme
court of the District of Columbia. But
todaN when the contest was renewed
beforA the supreme court OF the United
States. the main issue had been
crowded out of the limelight by an
incidental one. Now, the burning
issue is whether the principal officials
Sof the American Federation OF Labor
s..rt to go to jail on charges of con-
Dttot Of court.
Nntences Against Labor Leaders.
'"S because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the district supreme
court in the original case, Samuel
Gombers. president Of the federation.
is nnder sentence to serve twelve
months in jail; John Mitchell, vice
nresident of the federation, to. serve
nine months; and Frank Morrison, It's
secretary, to serve six months.
The Bucks Stove and Range COM
pany was selling stoves and ranges
throughout the United States at the
timei the suit began. It was doing
business Of $1,250,000 a year. 1t com
planned that the american Federation
of Labor and its members were con-
spiring to ruin it's business by means
of a boycott The court was asked to
grant an injunction against a con-
tinuation Of the efforts, and partlc-
rlarly to restrain the American FeGer-
alton of Labor from printing in its
official organ, the American FEEDER
ationist, the name of the company as
being on the weldon on't-patronize-list.
The opposition Of the federation was
alleged to be due to strike of metal
polishers in the shops of the company.
Injunction Issued, Then Modified.
The supreme court of the District Of
Columbia issued the injunction. The
court of appeals of the District modi-
fed the decree in several ways, the
princinal modification being based OH
the holding that the injun ction against
the publication Of the company's name
on the t-patrOnize-list"' should
be effective only when the publication
was Sin furtherance Of such boy
cott." In so doing, it is contended
that the lower court made distinc-
'tion between boycott of the company
nv the members of organized labor and
boycott Of the members against the
conpauy'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 appealed from this de-
cjsion. The manufacturing company
believed that it, di' not go far enough,
and the defendants took the position
that 1t went too far. !
The attorneys for the American !
Federation of Labor contend that each
one Of the defendants lad right to
refuse to patronize those who dealt !
with the stove and range company ard |
therefore they cou'd combine in re-
fusing. 1t is said that what was lawful /
for one was lawful when done in I
combination. This position is attacked |
as being opposed to the liberty to dis
nose of ones goods AMI pc heinz con /
trarv tc the decisions Of all the states ,
of the union The lower court was
divided or the point.
Freedom Of Press Argued.
For the American Federation Of La
bor. it is argued. that to prohibit the
publication Of the "We-don't-patronize
list would be an interference with the
ri-hts and the freedom
of the press On the ether hand it is
contended that even a constitutional
right may be so used as to be made
part of conspiracy prohibited by
law.
Still further, it is argued that bust
ness is not property nor property
Continued on Page 50