The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1911-01-27
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 its 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,
is 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. Darling
ton.
The Bucks Stove and Range COM
pany was selling stoves and ranges
throughout the United States at the
time the suit began. 1t was doing a
business Of 81 zoe, 900 a year. 1t eum-
planned that the American Federation
Of Labor and its members were con-
spring to ruin its business by means
Of a boycott. The court was asked to
grant an injunction against continu-
alton 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 companSas being on the
-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 Weldon 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 boycott of the company by |
the members of organized labor and a
boycott of the members against the
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
,ision The manufacturing company
that it did not go far enough,
md the defendants took the position
hat it went too far.
The attorneys for the American Fed
sration of Labor contend that each one
If the defendants had right to refuse
o patronize those who dealt with the
stove and range company and there
ore they could combine in refusing. 1t I
S said that what was lawful for one
vas lawful when done in combination. !
This position is attacked as being op-
,osed to the liberty to dispose of ones
,oods and as being contrary to the de- '
isions of all the states Of the union.