Bisbee daily review., 1911-05-16
BOYCOTT DOOMED
 SAYS SUPREME COURT

(Continued From Page One.) tween organized labor and the Buck s Stove and Range company Of St. Louis, Mo.
 important Decision. The St. Louis concern haJ come into the supreme court of the Dis trict of Columbia to prevent by in- junction the American Federation of Labor and its officials from boycott ing it's own products or the business of those who dealt with it. The question involved and the parties con- cerned attracted widespread atten- ton. The company claimed that the Federation was trying to unionize the company's shors. The lator lead CTS urgel that the company was ''un- fair to labor. The head of the com pany was J. ". Van Cleave, presi- dent of the National Manufacturers Association, which had often come into conflict with the Federation. He wes charged with having been op- posed to organized labor, and with having sought to put his nickle plate workers on ten-hour instead of a nine hour basis.
 injunction issued.
 Justice Gould of the district su- preme court issued the injunction prayed for by the company. An ap- peal was taken to the Court o' Ap- peals O the istrict of Columbia but before that coIrt ould pass rpon the validity o the injunction. the Bucks Stove and Range Company again came into the district supreme court, this tiue with charges of contempt against President Compers, Vice Pres ident Mitchell and Secretary Morri- son. These men were accused of hay ing violated the injunction decree.
 Justice Wright found them guilty and sentenceI President Gompers to one year in jail, Vice President Mitchell, to nine months; and Score tary Morrison, to six months. An appeal was taken from this sentence, first to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed it, and finally to the supreme court of the United States.
 Alleged Violation.
 The alleged violations consisted of rtterances and acts in fnrtherance of the boycott It was charged that Mir. Gompers had rusheJ out the Jan uary number of the American Feder- ationist, the official organ of the American Federation of Labor, so as to evade the decree, which went in to effect the Say after most of the magazines were out of his hands This magazine contained the name of the company on the "We-Don 't-Pat- ronize." or Unfair" list It was also alleged that a number of copies Of this magazine were sent out after the decree became effective. In defense, testimony was yregeDtss ko show that only thirty od1 copies were mail ed to libraries and other similar in, stitutions Tie complainant claimed that about one hundred were sent out
 Appealed to Labor.
 It was further charged that in the succeeding numEC~ of the Federation ist, Gompsrs, Mitchell and Morrison joined in an appeal to organized b. bor for fun5s to carry the injunction case to the hicher court. It was con tended that this appeal was used as a vehicle to continue the boycott. The charged states that the appeal referred to an editorial in the same number of the magazine as setting forth the attitude of those making the appeal. This editorial was attrio- uted to MT. Gompers.
 Individuals as members of organ ized laboT." this publication said, twill still exercise the right to buy or not to buy the Bucks Stove and ranges. It Is an complication of the saying that you can lead horse to water. but you can't make him drink
 Another charge was that in the March Federationist. Mir. Gompers published an editorial, in which II was said: Tt should be borne in mind that there Is no law, aye, nos even a court decision, compelling union men CT their friends of labor to buy a Bucks stove or range. No not even to buy Q Loewe hat.
 In addition to the urgent appeal. in which MT. Mitchell joined, he was accused of having acted in contempt bv presiding over the United Mine Workers convention when it adopt ed a resolution to fine any member who bought a Bucks stove.
 Mailed Out Magazines.
 In addition to the urgent appeal charge against MT. Morrison, he was also accused of having mailed out the magazines objected to.
 Distinguished counsel appeared on both sides, when the case was argue3 before the supreme court. Promln- ent among these was Judge Alton E. Parker, former presidential Candidate, who had been retained to defend the labor leaders. His principal argu- ment was that his injunction was an improper interference with the con stitutional right of free speech ana a free press. He further contendeo that the injunction decree was void, at least, in parts and that his clients could not be held under the statutes for violating void decree"