The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1911-02-03
FAMOUS BOYCOTT
ARGUMENTS BEGIN
Question Now is Whether or Not Lead
ers in Famous Boycott Will
Have to Go to Jail.

Washington, d, c., Jan. 24.-One of
the most spectacular legal battles ever
waged 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
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 Incl
dental 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.
Because they failed to obey the in
junction issued by the District supreme
court in the original case, Samuel
Gompers, president of the Federation
lis under sentence to serve twelve
months in Jail; John Mitchell vice
president of the Federation, to serve
nine months, and Frank Morrison, its
secretary to serve six months.
Fighting for the American Fedora
tion of Labor and its 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 representatives of the
Bucks Stove and Range company are
Daniel Davenport and J. j. Darling
ton,
The Bucks Stove and Range com
lpany was selling stoves and ranges
Throughout the United States at the
time the suit began. 1t was doing a
business of 81, 1,250000 a year. It com,
iplained that the American Federation
J of Labor and it's members were con.
spring to ruin it's business by means
, of boycott The court was asked to
grant an injunction against a continu.
alton 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
t-patronize-list" The opposi
tion of the Federation was alleged to
be due to a strike of metal polishers
in the shops of the company.
The supreme court of the District OF
Columbia issued the injunction. The
court of appeals of the district modi-
fled 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 'Wedon't-patronize-list" should
be effective only when the publication
was "in furtherance of such a boy.
cott" In so doing, it is contended that
the lower court made a distinction be
tween 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 company. 1t is
urged that only the second kind OF
boycott was held Illegal
Both sides appealed from this de
cision 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 right to refuse
to patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and there
fore they could combine in refusing. II
is 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 de
cisions of all the states of the union