Show Is 18 GOMPERS feo TO JAIL I icH's Ws Case eg n as Contest Contest Con Con- test Over Legality of Boycott PREME COURT IS ISNOW ISNOW NOW HEARING CASEn CASEI CASE t Inal n l I State Stage of Spectacular f Battle Between Capital CapitalS 4 S and Labor 1 I I 1 f WASHINGTON ASHINGTON f Jan 27 The 27 The t 4 4 of the Buck Buek Stove bov ott case caso Eu and anil Rj n flange Hango e company of St. St Louis Against p th the thc American American Federa- Federa J 4 turn hon of J. J Labor abor today came callie to a 1 dramatic close dose in ri the tho supreme court conr of the tho United States r z dedd decided d l it was a Ii question i it t would not hear bear 0 i I H H H 4 ii WASHINGTON Jan 27 One One of ot the theat thet at it t spectacular legal battles over ever ed between capital and organized bar feor r reached its final stages today hen the supreme court of the United l took up for oral argument the m litigation by the Buck Stove company of or St. St Louis Lonis Mo thit the American Federation of Ib ibor r. r contending forces started their tbt b lt to determine the tho legality leg of the boycott tott That was in the supreme lt i ot f the tho District of Columbia But when the contest was renewed Il Tore e the supreme court of the United lt ties s. s the main issue le had been crowded l f f the limelight ht by an incidental iN N Now w the burning issue is whether principal officials of the Ameri American an ei HoD of Labor are to go o to jail h l es of contempt of court th they thea 1 failed to obe obey tho the Inti In- In ti i issued by the district supreme I rt t jia in the tte original cl case cace e. e Samuel GomI Gom- Gom pr I e t of the federation Is un un- t pien to servo serve t twelve elve months In l Jolin h II vice pres president ent of the theo theto o n. n to se serve vc nine months and rr la 1 bid Counsel jor got or the Am American F Federation i r arid and iid its officials are Alton B. B reformer t former Dem Democratic presidential te if Jackson H H. Ralston Freder- Freder n 14 William E. E Richardson John tJohn T. T Walker Or to them rt representatives of ot the Bucks Stove Range Ranle Company arc are Daniel Daven- Daven tand ind J J. J J. J Darlington r be be Buck Stove and Range company t selling stoves and ranges through through- the United States at the time the It t b bt nn n It was wu doing a business of at Or a year elu It complained that the rf an Federation of Labor and its bers were conspiring to ruin its bus- bus lH b W bS- means maans of a boycott bocott The court asked to grant rant an injun injunction against of the efforts and parr par- par pary r to restrain the American FedD Fed- Fed D of Labor from rom printing In its I organ the American Federation Federation- tho th name of ot the company as being baing on one e don't We list The op- op won of the thc federation was alleged to I to lue-to 18 a strike of metal n polishers In IOD of the tho compani company compan i v Fine Pine D Distinction R Dc supreme court of the District of I luu issued d the thc Injunction The appeals of tho the district modified decree dacree in several ways the prin- prin t It l modification being based on the Waif that the that the Injunction against the of oC the name on 8 don't dont list hat should on eLLie only when the tho publication was C lUTe furtherance of at auch fluch a boycott In it is contended that the lower tower rt made a distinction between a boyC boy boy- W of C the company by members of or- or lab labor r and a boycott bocott of the them m mem mem- mem r ss against the company's customers t refused d to stop dealing with the tho pin pan It is urged that only the thern se sec sec- kind nd o of ot boycott bocott was held Illegal l tho sides appealed from decision manufacturing company believed M It did not po go o far tar enough and the ate took the position that it went far far- ar at- at Eight to Refuse attorn s for th the American Feder- Feder f Labor contend that each one ono of ot had a n right to refuse to lie Iso those who dealt with the stove range ego age company and therefore they 1 combine in refusing It is said what hat was as lawful for tor one one was wag lawen law- law en done In combination This j PJ ji TM 1 attacked as being opposed to to dispose of ones one's goods and ag contrary to the decisions of all an rT-Jl rT of the union The lower court divided on tho the point T r the American Federation of Labor argued that to prohibit the n II of ot the dont don't list listo b be o an interference with and the thc freedom of tha thu 1 On the other othor hand it is con- con that even a 11 constitutional right bt 6 BO 10 used as to be bo made mado a part a prohibited by law hii Ha Not Property Right Eight u. u further it is argued that busl- busl i i not not Property nor a v but H rather a n mere abstraction In- In ble Ju of ot Judicial protection This on 1 18 opposed also Q e the injunction of the original A b 6 en n passed on bv by the higher e. e DUck Stove and Range corn corn- c that President It I l ent Mitchell and Secretary on O. had nad violated Its provisions by publicly on the effect of ot tho the on They were brou brought ht Into ana held id to bo ho in contempt Now argued d In their behalf that tho the COurt urt ha hadnot nad not issued a 0 valid in inon In- In on on and that thc they could not be pun- pun fOr r disobeying it That it Injunction is shown it e by y the 6 fact that tho the higher er t- t lee It |