The Wilmington morning star., 1944-12-20
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER

cannot pretend TO follow, number OF inter.
esting individuals over there on the left have
arrived at the conclusion that the boycott is
unfair, un-American and in round numbers.
evil, if it is employed by their political and
theological opponents against actors, writer's
and radio entertainers who took part in the
recent campaign on the side of the New Deal
That it is either unfair or un-American 1
deny. 1t has long been used as weapon by
the very people who now object most We
hemently and of course, we all know that not
all things American are necessarily nice A
method or practise may be many degrees off
the beam of righteousness and still be, unfo--
tunately, American. Bigotry for example, is
deplorable, but nevertheless American as re-
current waves in our history show.
That the boycott, carried to it's logical con-
ciusion is dangerous I do not deny, however
and I would like to say that I was being
more ironic than serious when gently touch
ed upon the possibilities Of boycott NV
purpose was to point out that cur Supreme
Court and Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt have en-
dorsed this dangerous weapon and l hoped
II made it clear that I was not endorsing
their endorsement but warning of it's posi-
biities.
Our Supreme Court endorsed it in o
Frankfurter Opinions which held that it was
legitimate for unions not only to boycott the
merchandise of innocent, law abiding, tax
paying citizens who are entitled to the pro-
lection of their government but to do so for
Legitimate purposes and by false and mali
cous propaganda.
do not understand Frankfurter at all and
insist that his reputation as liberal and
valuable citizen is undeserved. I think we are
the worse off for his service and influence
among us because in his most conspicuous mo-
ments I have been unable to find him on
the side of law and order which is the side
for justice of the Supreme Court. In the
historic Bisbee deportation case he ignored
| the imminent peril of armed revolution in an
American community and condemned the
Americans who beat the revolutionists to it
by rounding them up and shipping them off
into New Mexico. Had they not done this
there might have been a terrible battle in
which innocent Americans, residents Of the
town and countryside, and including women
and children, would have fallen. In fact that
is what the jury did decide in acquitting the
defendant in the test case.
Twice more, in t h e so-called carpenters
case and the so-calied cafeteria case, we found
Franldurter deciding in favor Of unions which
admittedly lied against unoffending citizens
with intent to destroy them if they persisted
in their refusal to yield to unfair demands.
In each case, the boycott was a bludgeon
and the Supreme Court gave it resounding
cheer. 't er,tfe
Mrs. Roosevelt's endorsement was not
boycott in refusing to enter a theatre which
was being picketed in the interests Of a rank,
reeking racket without even considering the
facts and merits Of the dispute.
Now there are many other presidents and
horrible examples, but these will do to justify
counter-boycotts which could produce some
terrible results in our country. For example.
if all the citizens who voted republican in
the last election were to organize to boycott
a in CT
and other New Deal actors writers, and pro-
ducers were implicated and all merchandise
advertised on the air by similar characters,
we would be divided into two big mutually
hateful families Of Hatfelds and McCoys.
Nevertheless, if you extend the reasoning Of
Frankfurter and Mrs. Roosevelt, that is where
you find yourself and it is not up to me to
say whether that is where they would like
to find us. If it isn't they are being reckless
in pointing that way as though some beautiful
promised land lay down the rough road
In practice, boycotts usually are ineffective
unless they are enforced by law.
One of the few hilarious moments Of the
campaign Of the communists in the Newspaper
Guild Of which Mrs. Roosevelt is a member,
although she is not qualified for membership,
was the boycott against a famous line of
alcoholic beverages whose owners refused to
violate certain contracts and withdraw their
| advertising from a paper which the Guild had
struck by vote Of tiny minority of the
whole number of workers. The advertiser tried
to reason with the communists. which was
waste Of effort, by pointing out that he
would be violating the principle Of the free
press it he used his box-offce power in this
manner. II he could legitimately use it for
this purpose then, with equal right and justice,
he could use it to make the editor comply
with his political beliefs. Then the advertisers
would, indeed, control the press.
The boycott and the strike both failed but
the humor Of the boycott lay in the fact that
the two prime agitators in the strike were no.
torious moochers who never bought drink and
were always on the cuff even at hotels and
unfailingly in night clubs and would never
refuse a free drink, boycott or no.
Generally, boycotts flop even when declared
by unions because the members find it in
convenient and expensive to comply. OF course
if mob pickets store or spies are known
to be planted there to report union members
who enter, the thing is effective for just that
long
l suggest that the objections to the boycott
as mass weapon and discussions Of the dan
gers involved be addressed to Franlfurter and
Mr. R. They have been really serious about
it. They mean it. 1 was only pointing out
something
Gu TTIEN CAV