The San Juan islander. [volume] (Friday Harbor, Wash.) 1898-1914, 1911-02-03
CONTEST BE-
TWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL
REACHES CLIMAX.
Battle Was Begun to Determine Right
of Labor Organizations to Resort to
Boycott-Litigation Changes Aspect
Before Final Decision-History Of
the Case.

reached it's final stages during the past
week when the supreme court of the
United States took up, for oral argu-
ment, the famous litigation by the
Bucks Stove & Range Company, of st.
Louis, Mo-, against the American Fed
Grafton 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
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 issue is whether the
principal officials of the American Fed
Grafton of Labor are to go to Jail on
charges of contempt of court.
Sentences Stand.
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 sentece 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 H. Ralston,
Frederick L. Siddons, William E. Rich
ardson and John T. Walker. Opposed
to them as the representative of the
Bucks Stove & Range Company, are
Daniel Davenport and j. j. Darlington.
The Bucks Stove & Range Company
was selling stoves and ranges through
out the United States at the time the
suit began. 1t was doing a business
of 81, 100000 year. 1t complained that
the American Federation of Labor and
it's members were conspiring to ruin it's
business by means of boycott. The
court was asked to grant an injunc-
ton against a continuation of the eff
forts and particularly to restrain the
American Federation of Labor from
printing in it's official organ, the Amer
lean 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 a
strike of metal polishers in the shops
of the company.
| Injunction Issued.
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 modification 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 furth of such boycott"
In so doing, it is contended that the
lower court made distinction between
boycott of the company by the mem
bers of organized labor and boycott
customers who refused to stop dealing
with the company. It is urged that
only the second kind of boycott was
held illegal.
Both sides appealed from this deci-
sion. The manufacturing company be-
lieved that it did not go far enough,
and the defendants took the position
that it went too far.
The attorneys for the American Fed
Grafton of Labor contend that each one
of the defendants had right to re-
fuse to patronize those who dealt with
cfo
therefore, they could combine in refus-
ing. 1t is said that what was lawful
for one was lawful wnen done in COM
bination. This position is attacked as
being opposed to the liberty to dis
pose of ones goods and as being con-
trary to the decisions of all the states
of the Union. The lower court was di.
vided on the point.
For the American Federation of La
Dor, it is argued that to prohibit the
publication of the .We-don't-patronize
list" would be an interference with con-
stitutional rights and the freedom of
the press. On the other hand, it is
commended that even a constitutional
right may be so urged as to be made
a part of conspiracy prohibited by
law
Other Arguments.
| Still further, it is argued that bust
ness is not property nor a property
right, but rather a mere abstraction
incapable of judicial protection. This
proposition is opposed also.
Before the Injunction of the original
court had been passed on by the higher
court, the Bucks Stove & Range
Company complained that President
4 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 it is argued in their
behalf that the lower court had not is
Isued valid injunction and that they
could not be punished, therefore, for
disobeying it. That it was not proper
injunction is shown. it is argued, by
1.-THE fact that the higher court modified