Show r THE CONTEMPT CASES OF 1 H GOMPERS MITCHELL I i AND MORRISON l I By Hon Seth Low of New NewYork York City of Co CoI I J College President I National Civic Fod Fed Fedj U j II The National Civic Federation has hns hasIn j In I Its membership both boll large lare em employers and tho Ut leaders of organized I I labor In a matter maler Uko the Injunction injunction tion proceedings In I ho the Bucks w and Range Hange case It seems as If it ought to be possible lo to make each side Bide ren reni i lize the others point of view at a least J faIrly enough to enable both bolh to 10 do doI I justice to 10 o each other This article artcle is nn nfl attempt to do 10 this In one of or the International rifle matches of or thirty years ago n o one of the Ut contestants took toole care careful cre I m ful fl I aim and made a L bulls buls eye e but hut ho Jailed failed to score he ho hit lilt the tho wrong target tal el Something this is seen een In iii the HIO firing fring of hath both sides In this famous anions controversy They Tho hit the thc oth olli othI other I I ei er sides weak point but hut not that of their own Tho The manufacturers and rU I those who sympathize with thorn them In IH i condemning the boycott bOcol that figures 11 F in this affair and that means m ans a very er l i 1 r largo Jargo section of the American m peo people t 1 starting with the Idea that such s ch chi i r z boycott Is obnoxious to fair fai play IlIa as aswell 1 I well wel as unlawful are am inclined to be bei i j that anything which enables 1 the courts to contend successfully 1 against such a boycott is isn a legitimate weapon to use In such a n struggle Organized labor on the other hand handas as represented by the American Fed Federation FedI Fedoration I oration oraton of oC Labor starting with wih tho the 1 l belief beler that such a boycott is a a natural right sees In the effort to destroy destro the boycott an attempt to crush or m organized labor and identifies Its ls objection 1 I ion tion ton to the lie actual use made of or the tho thoI I writ of c Injunction in IlL this case with a astr aI I struggle str ale to preserve for all al Ameri Amen Americans I cans tho thio right of free pi ess and free speech The Tue claim of organized labor laboris I is i that every evel man Is entitled en to con can control canI control I his purchasing power In his own interest and that therefore an organ organized organIzed i body bd of men should befree to do 10 dothe dothe the same sn thing This is the tho basis of I organized labors belief that tho the boy boycott boycott boycott cott is a natural right I Jt It does not seem to occur to either party that t both may ma bo be partly parly right t i t that the boycott as 39 a illustrated in this j I case may mar be the hateful thing thlu that j I t many believe it i to le he be but lut that also the method methol adopted for contending I II I I r It i may Involve the tho use of or I I Ii i powers by hr the tue court as dangerous as I the boycott Itself Itsel I I When Samuel Johnson was asked I a I I why hy ho believed in free Cree will ho 10 re I II II I i ii li plied piled pled Ve We W know free Cree and anil tho the end ont onI It I is probable that no ono one who ho has nol not found It Il to lo 0 his hiB personal advantage to lo tine HBO the sec see secondary boycott In an nn con controversy conI t I ever has hns looked upon It I or ever eCI will vIli wi look upon Ullon It as Involving I anything but buL a n tyrannical use uso of the tl power of oC Hie tue Lle many man against tho lie well wel I 1 t being heins of or fellow citizens who have havo done them no Ho wrong This is i something ing lug that thit the ho disinterested know by b intuition as Dr Johnson know ow that his will wil was as free fice fr e It Il is that in iii England before nor since the passage passa o of oC the Trades Dis Disputes Ds Act of lOG has any an such suck boy boycott ho hocott boycott cott ever over been attempted Jt It I Is true that in our own Revolutionary days such boycotts were put in force but hut buthis his thil was as ns a political not as a an In Industrial IndustrIal measure and led lel right up to actual war var It Ils Is also cear clear that in tho the contemplation of or tho the Sherman Anti AntiTrust AntiTrust Trust Act ct such boycotts are now nov not improbably Illegal le nl In the lie the United States while that law remains as ns it itis ItIe itIs is Ie It should bo be pointed out how however however however ever that when this Bucks Ducis Stove controversy began be an the tho decision In tho the Danbury Hat lIat case had lied not been ren reit rendered renI ered dered I by ly I tho the Supreme court court It I may mayvell ma maywell well vell 01 be believed that organized labor as an evidence of its is good sool citizenship will wi refrain from ouch such boycotts as a have havo been condemned by br the court until In an orderly way vay it can bring about if I it can a change in the law lawso lawso so 50 that the law will vill wi permit what it now low forbids All Al who believe bele that organized labor Is In its essential be being be belog I log ins law abiding will wi recognize that I such boycotts must be a thing thins of the tho thelast I past last ast while whilo the law remains as It Is IsOn IsOn IsOn On the other hand the contention of organized labor that tho the effort to down tho tue boycott bocol through publicity by h the use uso of the Injunction Involves In this case cne and ami necessarily an nn at nt attempt attempt tempt to control the freedom of tho press antI and the Ule freedom of speech Is I not to be lightly dismissed The Tho In Injunction injunction junction Issued in the tho Bucks Buc s Stove I and Kongo Hago case enjoined in fact many man manI I different actions anti and it ft did in terms forbid the use uso of tho the press to enforce tho the boycott and tho use of speech to the same end This is the particular I aspect of or tho injunction which Is called caled in question queston exact phraseology of Judge I Goulds Injunction Js Is that the defend de defendants fend ants are arc enjoined among amons things I from publishing or otherwise clr cr cm whether in writing or orally I any statements or OT notice of any an kind kindor kindor or character whatsoever calling atten caHng alen j thou tou of the complainants customers or of of dealers or tradesmen or on the public to any an boycott bocott against the tho etc 1 I l Gompers Mitchell Ichel and Morrison have hac been adjudged guilty of contempt because they lucy havo hao treated treat ell this Ibis part of 01 the ito courts mandate as old oId because unconstitutional The Flue Injunction was isas obeyed In tho the particular lar br command to lo omit onIt Ms huls firms naino namO from time the Vo Wo Dont Patronize List but the American F anti and I gentlemen continued to discuss thin Iho propriety of the Injunction Partly because e tho the case sule became a cause caURO cel bro such Ilch of the In Injunction Injunction junction became more moro effective than thano Vo Wo o Dont DonL Dont Patronize List Itself Isol In enforcing the tho boycott and mil the be lw court cal rt has hold that hint the gentlemen were In contempt because the attention of f tIme tho court to shield this lJ tImI firm business by Injunction against a injury by b pub publicity lied had been rendered nugatory by b bI them while on the thu other hand it must be recognized that the Iho I action of I the court coul itself In enjoining enjoin Ins publicity has hm resulted in publishing thu tho fact of the time boycott more mor widely than J lover I over 1 I Jt It I was vas wn argued as ng contempt of court i I I for Instance that lint time Iho Injunction itself isel j J I was printed in the time American Fedora Feder lon Is Every li rr other paper and maga magazine magaI I zinc zine In Iii II the time land could print rint time the In Injunction InI Injunction junction as a matter of news but I when tho American printed It It It I became contempt of oC I court court Furthermore Mr Mi II Gompers Compers was hold in contempt because ho dis discussed discussed discussed cussed the tho case or for time the manner In I which ho discussed the lie tw case in tho thoI In perfect legitimate legitimate political campaign a I mate effort to luring bring about In an nn order orderly i ly Iy i way war a change In the policy of the time I j country in respect of such questions i The TIme determination of the legal I questions at Issue can safely bo he left lef to the tIme Court of the time United j I States s but it Is legitimate to call cal at attention attention to two Iwo aspects of oC the time case which cannot fail fai to impress a n lay layman a aman man Every Evor other person peron in tho the Unit United Uni United ed c States except the time persons affected by b this tIlls injunction is loft free to do dowhal what whal those defendants are forbidden I to do that is discuss discus In tho time press and md on the time platform all al the aspects of this case cne despite tho the publicity thero there thereby by hy given to the time boycott Of course tho time Injunction might be extended to t cover coel others In lu case of need nut Lint what would be le time the effect of tho time In Injunction Injunction junction If IC It I were made universal If II I this procedure be bo a proper rem remedy remedy remedy edy at nil all al why wh may mar It I not be applied to 10 l everybody and If It IL were to be he so applied would there bore not bo be at nt least one subject In iii the United States as asto asto asto to which free Cree press pross anti and aOI free speech would not exist Secondly In this aspect of the case the time Injunction was Issued to prevent tho the publicity of the time boycott and anti It has increased the time publicity of oC tho the boycott a t As Asa a preventive of or o publicity therefore the Injunctions seems to be a failure entirely Irrespective irrespective of any an violation of It by b tho the defendants If I boycotting by b publication Ion tion ton is illegal legal why wh not enforce the tho law hav W against It in tho the usual manual way wn If IC I it i Is a crime why wh Is not somebody in indicted indicted tried and convicted If I ft It 11 is hi i pot oot fOt a n crime why not sue for threefold damages as u a has been heen done In the time hat hatters hatI I t IS case cae under time the Sherman Anti Ami AntiTrust Trust rust Act But what ground is there thel for resorting In such a I controversy lo to the exceptional process of oC an aim In Injunction InJunction junction against publicity which can only be made mode effective by forbidding certain men to 10 do mb what every eorY other man in the country is left eL free to do mb at nl athis athis i iI I his hil pleasure that is discuss time the ac ion tion lon of or tho time court cour a as It I hours beam l ur upon me U I controversy to which It I refers To ro tho time writer Limo tho boycott as n practiced Iced Heed In iii this tImIs case ens seems wrong as m n l li lias I ne ns probably Illegal hut Is tho time remedy m I proper by an nn remedy injunction upon ullon publicity a n nI |