Evening star., 1911-01-27
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT
Sentence of Imprisonment for Con-
tempt of Court Involved.
OUTLINE OF THE CONTENTION
Suit for Injunction Against Boycott
and Subsequent Proceedings Be-
fore Supreme Court.

| 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
| 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 crowded out OF
the limelight by the incidental one. Now,
the burning issue is whether the principal
officials of the American Federation of
Labor are to go to Jail on charges of
contempt of court
Officials Under Sentence.
Because they failed to obey the injunc-
tion issued by the District Supreme Court
in the original case, Samuel Gompers,
president of the federation is under SEN
tence to serve twelve months in Jail;
John Mitchell. vice president Of the fed
Grafton. to serve nine months and Frank
Morrison, it's secretary, to serve six
months.
The American Federation of Labor and
its officials are represented by Alton b.
Parker. former democratic presidential
candidate; Jackson II. Ralston, Frederick
l.. Siddons. William E. Richardson and
John T. Walker. Opposed to them as the
representative of the Bucks Stove and
Range Company are Daniel Davenport
and j. j. Darlington
The Bucks stove and Range Company
complained that the American Fed
Grafton of Labor and its members
we're conspiring to ruin its 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 its official organ.
the American FederatiOnist the name Of
the company as being on the ''We-don't
patronize-ist.'
Columbia issued the Injunction The
Court of Appeals of the District modified
the decree In several ways. the principal
modification being based on the holding
that the Injunction against the publica-
ton OF the companys name on the We
don't-patronize-list" should be effective
only when the publication was "in fur
therance OF such boycott
Each Side Appeals.
Both sides appealed from the decision
The manufacturing company believed
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 a right to refuse
to patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and therefore
they could combine in refusing 1t is
said that what was lawful for one was
lawful when done in combination. This
position is attacked as being opposed 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.
For the American Federation of Labor,
II is argued, that to prohibit the publica-
ton Of the ''we-don't- t-patronize-list'' would
| be an interference with constitutional
| rights and the freedom of the press
Still further. it Is argued, that business
| is not property nor property right. but
rather mere abstraction incapable of
judicial protection.
Another Charge Preferred.
Before the injunction of the original
| court had been passed on by the higher
court the Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany complained that President Gompers,
Vice President Mitchell and Secretary
Morrison had violated it's provisions by
| commenting publicly on the effect of the
injunction. They were brought into court
and held TO be in contempt.
Now 1t is argued in their behalf that
| the lower court had not issued a valid
injunction and that they could not be
punished, therefore, for disobeying it,
| That ii was not a proper injunction is
| shown, il Is argued, by the fact that the
| higher court modified it.
The opening argument was made more
spectacular than usual by the presence in
| the courtroom of several officials of the
American Federation of Labor. Among
these were President Samuel Gompers.
Vice President John Mitchell. Secretary
| Frank Morrison. all under sentence to
Jail as an outcome of the controversy.
Mr.. Darlington's Argument.
The first argument was made by j. j
Darlington Of this city. who appeared for
the Bucks Stove and Range Company
He explained that the attorneys would
consider first the boycott case and then
| take up the contempt case.
! The attorney told the court that the
present case differed from any other
| boycott" case thta had ever been brough
| in that the entire labor organization OF
/ the country was arraigned, while in pre-
ceding cases the proceedings mad been
limited to local unions.
review Of the controversy was then
entered into. Mr. Darlington said tina,
the boycott had originated as the result
OF strike of forty out OF 30 employees
OF the Bucks Stove and Range Company
at St. Louis, because they were nol
granted nine-hour day instead of ten
hour day. He said that the employees
were paid by the piece, and for the com
pany TO have acceded to the demand OF
forty men would have been to deprive
$50 employees of S60.OUO in wages annu-
ally.
In reality. he told the court. the object
of the boycott" was to require the com
pany 10 unioniZe its shops.
n>.1o..l - n Y~corr>c%
sion OF the defense OF the American
Federation Of Labor to the effect tina,
the association was not so related to the
subordinate bodies to be responsible
for their acts. Mr.. Darlington took the
| xosifian that 80 far WAS this incnrrecj