without interference from them or any of them, and from interfering in any manner with the sale of the product of the complainant's factory or business by defendants, or by any other person, firm, or corporation, and from declaring or threatening any boycott against the complainant, or its business, or the product of its factory, or against any person, firm, or corporation engaged in handling or selling the said product, and from abetting, aiding, or assisting in any such boycott, and from printing, issuing, publishing, or distributing through the mails, or in any other manner, any copies or copy of the American Federationist, or any other printed or written newspaper, magazine, circular, letter, or other document or instrument whatsoever, which shall contain or in any manner refer to the name of the complainant, its business or its product, in the 'We don't patronize' or the 'Unfair' list of the defendants, or any of them, their agents, servants, attorneys, confederates, or other person or persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with them, or which contains any reference to the complainant, its business, or product in connection with the term 'Unfair' or with the 'We don't patronize' list or with any other phrase, word, or words of similar import, and from publishing or otherwise circulating, whether in writing or orally, any statement, or notice, of any kind or character whatsoever, calling attention to the complainant's customers, or of dealers or tradesmen, or the public, to any boycott against the complainant, its business, or its product, or that the same are, or were, or have been declared to be 'Unfair,' or that it should not be purchased or dealt in or handled by any dealer, tradesman, or other person whomsoever, or by the public, or any representation or statement of like effect or import, for the purpose of, or tending to, any injury to or interference with the complainant's business, or with the free and unrestricted sale of its product, or of coercing or inducing any dealer, person, firm, or corporation, or the public, not to purchase, use, buy, trade in, deal in, or have in possession stoves, ranges, heating apparatus, or other product of the complainant, and from threatening or intimidating any person or persons whomsoever from buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in the complainant's product, either directly, or through orders, directions or suggestions to committees, associations, officers, agents, or others, for the performance of any such acts or threats as hereinabove specified, and from in any manner whatsoever impeding, obstructing, interfering with, or restraining the complainant's business, trade, or commerce, whether in the State of Missouri, or in other States and Territories of the United States, or elsewhere wheresoever, and from soliciting, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting any person or persons, company, or corporation to do or cause to be done any of the acts or things aforesaid.

"And it is further adjudged, ordered, and decreed that the complainant recover against the defendants the cost of this suit, to be taxed by the clerk, and that it have execution therefor as at law."

The complainant is a manufacturer of stoves and ranges, and its business represents an investment of about $1,000,000, and its sales each year amount to about $1,250,000, and extend throughout the various States and Territories of the United States.

The American Federation of Labor includes nearly 2,000,000 wage earners in the United States and Canada. Under the constitution of the Federation its members are classified according to their trades into separate groups or organizations. In St. Louis there is a Metal Polishers' Union and various other local unions. In addition there is the St. Louis Central Trades and Labor Union composed of the local unions. In August, 1906, certain metal polishers employed in complainant's factory became involved in a controversy with the complainant and simultaneously withdrew from complainant's employ; in other words, struck. Thereupon the Metal Polishers' Union declared the complainant "unfair" to organized labor and published the declaration in their local labor journal, issued circulars to the same effect, and in various ways sought to boycott complainant's product. Thereafter application was made to the Central Trades and Labor Union for an indorsement of the boycott, and in November, 1906, such indorsement was made.

The American Federation of Labor in November of each year holds a convention, which is composed of delegates from the various subordinate bodies. At the November, 1906, convention a resolution was introduced for an indorsement of the action of the St. Louis bodies in their controversy with the complainant, and to have complainant published in the "We don't patronize" list of the American Federationist, the official organ of the federation. This resolution was referred to the executive council with power to act, and said council at its next meeting in March, 1907, placed complainant and its product upon the "We don't patronize" list of the federation and directed the publication thereof in said list in the Federationist, and such publication was thereafter made. The executive council is composed of the president, secretary, treasurer, and the eight vice presidents of the federation. Immediately following the action of said executive council in so placing complainant upon said list of the federation the following circular was given wide publicity:

"IMPORTANT NOTICE!

"The executive council of the American Federation of Labor, in session at Washington, D. C., March 18-23, 1907, placed the Buck's Stove & Range Co., of St. Louis, on the unfair list.

"The publication of this concern will be made in the 'We don't patronize' list commencing in the May issue of the American Federationist.

"This firm is commencing to advertise in daily papers all over the country, endeavoring to offset the above action. All members take notice. Appoint committees to visit the dealers and bring it to the attention of all friends of organized labor."

The effect of the action of the local and national bodies upon the business of the complainant was immediate and far-reaching. In St. Louis dealers were waited upon by officers and representatives of the various local organizations, notably the Central Trades and Labor Union, and were told that they must cease handling complainant's product or they would themselves be boycotted. On October 18, 1907, which it will be noted was subsequent to the action of the federation in indorsing the position of the local bodies, a committee composed of the secretary of the Central Trades and Labor Union, the vice president of the Metal Polishers' Union, and a representative of the International Metal Workers' Union, called upon the St. Louis House Furnishing Co. and notified the company that if it did not cease handling the product of the complainant it would be boycotted. The representative of the company informed the committee that the company had about $5,000 worth of Buck's stoves and ranges on hand, and offered to discontinue dealing with the complainant if the committee would purchase the stoves the company had in stock. This the committee refused to do, and left with the admonition that if the company did not stop it would be put upon the "unfair" list. Thereupon, the company continuing to handle the product of the complainant, a boycott against it was prosecuted by the local unions, and circulars were distributed in the following form:

"Boycott St. Louis House Furnishing Co., 904 Franklin Avenue, agent for Buck's stoves and ranges, which are unfair to organized labor.

"Indorsed by Metal Polishers Union No. 13; Stove Mounters No. 86; Steel Range Workers No. 34; Central Trades and Labor Union of St. Louis and vicinity."

H. D. Hackman, a hardware dealer of St. Louis, and the Hencken & BroekenKroeger Furniture Co., of East St. Louis, were also boycotted for dealing in complainant's product.

Notices were given other local dealers, but, owing to their acquiescence in the demands made upon them, further action was not taken against them. The action taken in St. Louis is typical of that pursued throughout the country.

The Strauss-Miller Co., of Cleveland, Ohio, was compelled to cancel all back orders and abandon all relations with complainant owing to the position taken by the labor unions of that city.

The H. L. McElroy Co., of Youngstown, Ohio, after a conference with union representatives, wrote complainant: "It would be a serious calamity for us to be compelled to change our line at this time, but we can not endanger the success of our entire business by arousing the antagonism and animosity of the labor unions."

Bass & Harbour, of Oklahoma City, after an interview with labor representatives, wrote complainant that they "found it a good deal cheaper to stay out of the troublé than to get into it."

Alonzo Miller, of Staunton, Ill., wrote that he had been waited upon by a committee from the miners, clerks, and labor unions, who stated the union's side of the controversy with complainant. The letter closes with:

"They therefore forbid me of selling the Buck's stove any way, shape, or form, and if I did they would boycott me, and of course I can not ruin my business on account of your stoves."

Under date of September 30, 1907, Miller wrote to complainant that a motion was carried in the local union to fine any member who should buy a Buck's range or heater. The letter concludes:

"If you do not send your man I will send these stoves and ranges back at once, as I will not ruin my business on account of your stoves."

J. H. Kaufman & Co., of Aberdeen, Wash., wrote complainant that they had been advised by the trades council that complainant's stoves and ranges had been boycotted by the labor union on account of strike. The letter concludes that, if the difficulty was not soon settled, the concern would be compelled to discontinue dealings with complainant.

The Brownfield-Canty Carpet Co., of Butte, Mont., wrote in part as follows:

"We have been notified by the labor union of Butte that we must stop handling your line as your company has been declared unfair to labor. We know nothing

about the affair only what a circular from the Metal Polishers' Union says, but as Butte is the strongest union city in the Union we will have to quit the line."

Baker & Gidcumb, of Harrisburg, Ill., wrote that the union people of that eity would not allow them to handle complainant's goods.

F. W. Schneck & Co., of Milwaukee, Wis., wrote that they had been notified by a "vice president of the International Union of N. A." that the complainant was on the "unfair" list, and that they would be reported as complainant's agents or representatives unless some settlement was made.

A letter dated September 9, 1907, from one of complainant's customers at Great Falls, Mont., stated that their plans to put in a carload of complainant's product had been "knocked in the head by the unions in the town" requesting the firm not to handle complainant's product, which request, the firm added, "is equal to a demand." A letter dated October 12, 1907, from the Davenport Furniture & Carpet Co., of Davenport, Iowa, contained the information that the firm had been waited on by labor union representatives, "who stated there was now a boycott on against your company, and would be against all people handling your product.".

A letter from Mobile, Ala., stated that the firm had received a notice from the local labor organization of the boycott against complainant's stoves, and a request that the firm cease handling them, which the letter adds "of course I refused to do, telling them that we had contracted ahead with you for your stoves and that we were compelled to use them and asked them not to put us on the unfair list, owing to our circumstances, but I don't know what the committee will do."

A letter from Louisville, Ky., from one of complainant's customers, stated that they had been notified by representatives of the local labor organizations that if they handled complainant's stoves they were liable to be considered as unfair to union labor.

A letter from Galesburg, Ill., read in part as follows:

"A committee representing the Buffers and Metal Polishers' Union of this city called upon us to-day at the request of a similar union in your city. They claim you are on what they call 'the unfair list' and requested us to take action in the matter and discontinue handling your goods. This looks like 'boycott' to us. They are coming again to talk the matter over."

F. S. Bode, of Kenosha, Wis., wrote that he needed stoves but could not handle them owing to the labor unions in his city. His letter concludes: "Always had nice dealings with you but I'm forced to do this."

A letter from the Schunk-Marquardt Co., of Toledo, Ohio, stated that:

"Again we have been notified by the labor unions that the Buck's Stoves & Range Co. are still on the unfair list, and that if we continue to handle Buck's stoves and ranges they will boycott us. Not only on Buck's stoves and ranges, but on all hardware." Similar letters were received from many other cities, but we do not deem it necessary to make further allusion to them in this connection.

Different traveling salesmen of complainant testified to loss of patronage in different cities because of representations made by representatives of labor unions that dealers handling Buck's stoves would themselves be boycotted.

The bill charges that the publication of concerns in the "We don't patronize" list of the Federationist is "for the purpose of singling out and designating individuals and concerns so named and of notifying their customers and the public generally, and all the members of said 27,000 local unions in their several localities and of the several national and international unions, State federations, and central city labor unions that they are to be treated by them as unjust and hostile to the unions upon whose application such action is based, and that their business, products, and customers are to be boycotted by each and all the members of the American Federation of Labor and their friends and sympathizers, and that the whole power of its vast organization and combination is to be used against them to injure and destroy their business thereby, and that all the members of the American Federation of Labor are to abstain from purchasing or using said products and from dealing with any person who purchases, handles, or uses said product.”

The bill proceeds to set out specific instances of boycotts against complainant's patrons because they had continued to handle complainant's stoves.

In answer to these averments in respect to the publication in the "We don't paronize" list of the Federationist defendants "deny that the purpose thereof is to use the whole power of its (American Federation of Labor) vast organization and combination' 'to injure and destroy their (those not patronized) business thereby.' They deny that said 'We don't patronize' list prohibits or interferes with any constituent organization or its members 'dealing with any person who purchases, uses, or handles said product.'

They also disclaim knowledge concerning specific instances of boycotting mentioned in the bill.

The first question, therefore, to be determined is whether the defendants were connected with, and under this complaint responsible for, the acts above set forth. The complainant, on the one hand, contends that the action of said executive council and the publication in the "We don't patronize" list of the Federationist signified to each labor union throughout the land that they were to boycott not only complainant's product, but all those who upon demand did not cease business dealings with complainant. In other words, that what actually happened was the result intended. The defendants, on the other hand, earnestly contend that the sum total' of their offending has been a concerted severance of business intercourse with complainant, and that they are not responsible for what actually occurred.

The record shows that Mr. Gompers has been the president of the federation since 1886 and that he is a man of ability and a natural leader of men. It is apparent from a perusal of the record that during all these years he has been a dominant factor in the affairs of the federation, and that the general policy of organized labor throughout the land is shaped and controlled by the association of which he is the president. The record shows that a very large number of boycotts have been declared and prosecuted by the federation in the past, and that as a result of these boycotts considerable litigation has ensued. The decisions of the courts in the various labor cases where the boycott has been under consideration have been the subject of frequent discussion by Mr. Gompers, and he has frequently issued instructions and advice to the members of the federation both in the annual conventions of the federation and through the editorial columns of the Federationist. We will briefly review the previous position of the federation in respect to the boycott in our effort to ascertain the significance of the "We don't patronize" list.

In the annual convention of 1894 delegates from an organization that had refused or neglected to enforce a boycott against a wholesale clothing house were not seated, and it was resolved "to recommend to the public and organized labor to refuse to patronize or deal with any retail clothier handling the goods of said manufacturers." The convention of 1899 was held at Detroit, Mich. Mr. Gompers, in his annual report to that convention, under the head "Boycott-The right and practice," said: "It has been my purpose for some time to present, in a comprehensive manner, the right of the workers to employ the power of the 'boycott.' With that object in view the editorial appearing in the October issue of the American Federationist, under the caption, "The boycott as a legitimate weapon,' was written and published. It is commended to your serious consideration."

This report was referred to a committee, which, in its report, indorsed the above editorial and urged its careful reading. In the editorial referred to Mr. Gompers said: "A sympathetic boycott is as legal and legitimate as a sympathetic strike. Just as men may strike for any reason, or without any reason at all, so may they suspend dealings with merchants or others for any reason or for no reason at all. Thus a boycott may extend to an entire community without falling under the condemnation of any moral or constitutional or statutory law. But I shall be triumphantly told, boycotters never do confine themselves to moral suasion and appeal; that they resort to threats, intimidation, and coercion, and it is this which makes what is called 'compound boycotting'-that is, boycotting which extends to parties not concerned in the original dispute-criminal and aggressive. This sounds very plausi

*

*

*

ble. It is easy to deduce from such premises that boycotters interfere with property rights and the pursuit of lawful callings, and that under the National and State constitutions, to say nothing about explicit anticonspiracy laws, they are to be held civilly and criminally liable. But this argument about the employment

*

*

*

of threats and intimidation is fallacious and superficial. Its apparent validity disappears when, not saisfied with ugly looking words, we demand precise definitions. No one pretends for a moment that it would be proper for a boycotter to approach a merchant and say, 'You must join us in suspending all dealings with that employer or newspaper or advertiser on pain of having your house set on fire or physical assault.' This would be an unlawful threat, and people who would try to enlist others in their campaign by threats of this character would certainly be guilty of a criminal conspiracy. Do boycotters use such threats? Do they contend for the right to employ force or threats of force? Our worst enemies do not contend that they do. They "threaten,' but what do they threaten? They 'intimidate,' but how? Let Judge Taft, who issued his sweeping antiboycotting injunction, be a witness on this point. He said: 'As usually understood, a boycott is a combination of many to cause a loss to one person by coercing others against their will to withdraw from him their beneficial interests through threats that unless those others do so the many will cause similar loss to them." No man in his senses will dispute this axiomatic proposition, namely, that a man has a right to threaten that which he has a right to You may tell a man that if he does a certain thing you will

carry out.

* *

*

*
* *

*

never to speak to him or call at his house. This is a threat; but it is a threat that you have a right to make. Why? Because you have a right to do what you threaten. The same thing is strictly true of boycotting. * * A man may be coerced by actual force, by the threat of force, or by indirect means, which the law can not and does not prohibit. Coercion by a threat to suspend dealings is, to revert to our illustration, in the same category with coercion through a threat to cease friendly interLabor claims the right to suspend dealings with any and all who refuse to support what it considers its legitimate demand."

course.

*

*

*

In his testimony Mr. Gompers took occasion to say that he had not uttered a word of which he was not proud and which he would not reaffirm. Counsel for the defendants in their brief refer to this editorial as correctly setting forth the position of organized labor in respect to the boycott.

The 1905 convention adopted a report from the committee on boycotts, in which it was stated:

"We must recognize the fact that a boycott means war, and to successfully carry on a war we must adopt the tactics that history has shown are most successful in war. The greatest master of war said that 'War was the trade of a barbarian, and the secret of success was to concentrate all your forces upon one point of the enemy, the weakest, if possible. In view of these facts the committee recommends that the State federations and central bodies lay aside minor grievances and concentrate their efforts and energies upon the least number of unfair parties or places in their jurisdiction. One would be preferable. If every available means at the command of the State federations and central bodies were concentrated upon one such and kept up until successful, the next on the list would be more easily brought to terms, and within a reasonable time none opposed to fair wages, conditions, or hours but would be brought to see the error of their ways and submit to the inevitable. Under the present system our efforts are largely wasted and our ammunition scattered. Let us reduce the boycotts to the lowest possible number and concentrate our efforts upon those, and we feel certain better results will be obtained."

In an editorial in the February, 1908, Federationist Mr. Gompers reviewed the opinion of the learned justice below in issuing the temporary injunction, and among other things said: "Neither coercion, threats, nor conspiracy, in the unlawful sense (italics ours), have been resorted to, yet the whole injunction is based upon this wrong assumption."

At the annual convention of the federation at Norfolk, Va., in 1907 Mr. Gompers, in his report, discussed the boycott against complainant and its causes and also this suit, which had then been commenced. After stating his version of the original controversy with complainant Mr. Gompers continued:

"The investigation demonstrated clearly Mr. Van Cleave's hostile purpose toward the organization in question (International Brotherhood of Foundry Employees), and every effort at an amicable adjustment was fruitless. It was then that my colleagues and myself. the executive council, approved the position and action of the organization affected, and this fact was published in the American Federationist." A resolution was thereupon introduced and adopted:

"That each central body affiliated with American Federation of Labor be and is. hereby instructed to appoint a committee who shall conduct and manage a 'campaign of education' among the membership affiliated with their central body, as well as dealers in stoves and ranges in their locality, and thoroughly inform them of the entire facts of the dispute between the Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers, Brass and Silver Workers' Union of North America, the Brotherhood of Foundry Employees; also, as to the attitude of J. W. Van Cleave and the Manufacturers' Association toward organized labor: Be it further

"Resolved, That the said committee shall report on the 1st of each month to the officers of the American Federation of Labor the progress of the 'campaign of education,' together with a complete list of all dealers in their locality who are handling and selling the product of the Buck's Stove & Range Co. Be it further

"Resolved, That all commissioned organizers of the American Federation of Labor shall report on the 1st of each month to the officers of the American Federation of Labor the progress made in this 'campaign of education' by the different committees of the different central bodies in their respective districts and also render such aid to all committees as lay in their power."

The committee on boycotts recommended:

"That the executive council be instructed to remove from the 'We don't patronize list' the names of firms in all instances wherein the executive council has knowledge that the national or international union responsible for the boycott are not aggressively pushing the same."