| Show BOYCOTT CASE 1 BEING BEINO ARGUED Effort to Enjoin Federation of Labor From Publishing We Dont Patronize Lists HEARING AT WASHINGTON DECISION WILL HAVE FAR F R REACHING EFFECT Washington Nov 14 The suit of the Buck Ruck Stove Stoe Range company of St StLouis StLouis StLouis Louis brought to enjoin the American Federation of Labor from boycotting the products was given a hearing before Justice Gould Gouid today In inthe Inthe the tho supreme court of the District Di of Columbia The case had attracted widespread attention because of o the effect on organized labor and possible developments of a poUt political ical leal nature It is generally understood that whatever decision of the district court Is the case will be carried to the supreme court of the United States A somewhat similar case Is already pending before the higher court being what Is known as aa the Connecticut case a suit brought by a hat bat manu manufacturer manufacturer manufacturer of Connecticut against the United Hatters association which Is affiliated with the American Federation jf pf of Labor for treble damages sustained in ht the destruction of the manufacturers ers interstate trade by a boycott bocott which he claimed the hatters organization and the federation maintained upon his products product as far west as California The hat manufacturer claimed that before the boycott his lila interstate trade was about and that the boycott in injured injured Injured his hll trade yearly The case is now before the tho federal supreme court for argument Dec Dc D 2 and the decision Is expected to determine whether the Sherman antitrust law with its civil remedies apply to boycotts imposed by bythe bythe bythe the federation through Its Ita official or Ok organ organ gan the The bill of equity in the Buck Stove case heard today cites the methods by which It is claimed the entire forces of the federation are aro concentrated on a special boycott Inthis It this case while the application of the Sherman law is only incidentally Involved it does involve the tho question whether the unfair and we dont patronize lists as published in the constitute an un unlawful unlawful Unlawful lawful boycott The plaintiffs today presented lengthy arguments as to the boycott boott bo cott operation upon which they the asked a pre preliminary preliminary preliminary injunction should be granted Counsel for the defense objected to these affidavits The defense contend contended ed that the proceedings was an attempt to invoke the Sherman antitrust law without warrant thereof and to bring into the jurisdiction of the courts of the District of Columbia people from fr m mall all parts of the country also that the subject was not appropriate for in injunction injunction injunction junction They argued that the simply published a We Ve dont patron patronize ize list Any An attempt to abridge the right to publish was wag a violation of the freedom of speech and press Arguments Arguments ments meats occupied most of the day |
