Show LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL boycotting Is lawful boycotting and boy otting that thatis is unlawful people may agree got to buy goods goodis at a certain establishment or a class of establish me jentei and ad to refrain from patro patronizing I 1 an individual or class of individuals 18 for any cause that may seem to them su maleat but they must not prevent other people from transacting business with the person fir arm institution or class they have determined to boycott boyco tV workmen way may agree not to labor for an individual or company or r on any but the terms of a compact but they must not obstruct others wh who wish to do dowhit what they have determined not to do employers may coni combine taine against thed the demands emandi ot of employed emp loyes and make stipulations not tp employ certain persons or classes ot of persons out they most not hinder binder orther employers from taking a contrary course the distinction comprehends the ahr difference between the liberty which means true freedom and that liberty which leaps over its own bounds and aal leads inevitably to bondage bandage in exercising our conr own freedom we must take care that we do not infringe upon the freedom of others A man laas has the legal right to utilize his bis own skill and masele where he finds legitimate le vt dimate opportunity port unity or to withold it unless lie he has contracted for its use Buth but he ehas has no right to do anything to hinder another man from working arking wr where he will not or tor for a price that he be declines the boycott troubles arise aris efrom from losing loading sight eight of this distinction properly and legally exercised the boycott may be used to great advantage for the accomplishment of laudable ends improperly and unlawful unlawfully lIP exercised it becomes a weapon for evil assailing 9 personal rights infringing upon individual liberty and disturbing the peace of society these are evils that cannot be tolerated the strong arm of the law must be invoked against the instrument that creates them jul ful boycotting boycott lag must go the supreme court of has recently pas passed sed on this ibis question and n pronounces the kind ind of boycott tins tin we have ba here denounced a con SO acy w which is by of f t the e state t la in the course of the opinion the court made the following lo 10 eving language which all promoters promote rw of unlawful would do well to ponder upon t i I 1 it seems strange la in a country in which law interferes so little ith the liberty of the individual that it should be necessary to announce from the bench that every man may inay carry on his business as he pleases may go do what he be will with his own so BO 10 long na as a he does nothing unlawful and sets acts with mth due aue regard to co the rights of others and tt that the occasion sion lor for such ua an announcement should beant an attempt by government to interfere with the rights of citizens citizen gnor nor toy by the rich and powerful to suppress the poor but an attempt by a large body of workingmen to control by means little if any better than force the action of employ employed em |