Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1911-02-03
LABOR CONTEMPT
CASES ARGUED
U. s. SUPREME COURT OPENS
BOYCOTT cASE-JAIL OR FREE
DOM FOR GoMPERS ct Al.
IN FAMOUS BUCK STOVE CASE
Alton 3, Parker Pleads for Men Ac'
eused Of Injunction Con.
tempt-oraI Arguments
Being Made.

Washington, Jan. 2S.-One of the
most spectacular battles ever waged
between capital and organized labor
reached it's final stages when the su-
prsme court of the United States took
up for oral arguments the famous It'll
cation by the Bucks Stove and Range
company of St. Louis, Mo-, against the
American Federation of Labor.
The contending forces started their
light 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 limelight by an incidental
one. The burning issue now is whether
the principal officials of the American
Federation of Labor are to 60 to jail
on charges of contempt of court.
Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District of Co
lumbia supreme court in the original
case, Samuel Gompers, president OF
the Federation, is under sentence to
servo twelve months in Jail; John
Mitchell, vice president of the FEEDER
alton, to serve nine months, and Frank
Morrison, it's secretary, to serve six
months.
Alton Parker on Labor's Side.
Fighting for the American Fedora
ton of Labor and its officials are Al
ton B. Parker, former Democratic pres
idential candidate; Jackson H. Ralson
Frederick L. Siddons, William E. Rich
ardson and John T. Walker. Opposed
TO them as the representatives Of the
Bucks Stove and Range company are
Daniel Davenport and J. j. Darlington.
The Bucks Stove and Range company
was selling stoves and ranges through
out the United States at the time the
cult began. 1t was doing a business
Of S1,25O,O00 year. 1t complained
that the American Federation of Labor
and its members were conspiring to
ruin its business by means of boy.
colt. The court was asked to grant an
Injunction against continuation 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 We
don't-patronize-list. The opposition
Of the Federation was alleged to be
due to q strike of metal polishers in
the shops of the company.
injunction Was 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
principal notifications being based on
the holding that the injunction against
the publication of the company's name
on the "We.don't -patronize-list" should
be effective only when the publication
was in furtherance of such a boycott. .
In 20 doing, it is contended that the
lower court made distinction between
refusing to stop dealing with the com
pany by the members of organized la
Dor and q boycott of the members
against the company's customers who
refused to stop dealing with the com.
pany. 1t is urged that only the second
Find Of boycott was held illegal
Both sides appealed from the decis-
lon. The manufacturing company be-
lieved that it did not 60 far enough,
end the defendants took the position
that it went too far.
Attorneys for the American Fedora.
ton of Labor contend that each one
of the defendenas had right to refuse
t. patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and there.
fore they conld combine in refusing. 1t
IL said that what was lawful for one
was lawful when done in combination.
This position is attacked as being op.
posed 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.
Constitutional Rights Asserted.
For the American Federation of La.
Dor. 1t is argued that to prohibit the
publication of the "We-dOnt patron.
ize-list" would be an interference with
constitutional rights and the freedom
of the press. On the other hand, it is
contended that even constitutional
right may be so used as to be made
part of conspiracy prohibited by
law.
Before the injunction of the origina'
court had been passed on by the higher
court. the Bucks Stove and Range
company complained that Dresden,
Gompers, Vice President Mitchell and
Secretary Morrison had violated its
provisions by commenting publicity or
the effect Of the injunction. They were
brought into court and held to be in
contempt. Now it is argued in their
behalf that the lower court had no,
therefore they could not be punished
Issued valid injunction and that
for disobeying it, That it was not a
proper injunction is shown, it is ar
gued, by the fact that the higher court
modified it.
Boycott Case Is Settled.
Washington, Jan. 2S.-Reaching the
oonelusieu that the SEelss Stove &