generations of our people will thank those who, at this time, had the clarity of vision to see the right and the courage to strive manfully for the protection of our liberties against aggression.

This injunction against the American Federation of Labor contains many points with which we have hitherto been obliged to deal at long range.

We had hoped that the application for this injunction would be denied on the ground that there was no real basis of complaint in the plaintiff's allegations against the American Federation of Labor. The American Federation of Labor was represented by able attorneys and their arguments showed clearly that there was nothing unlawful in the fact that large numbers of wage-workers simultaneously declined to purchase the Buck's Stoves and Ranges.

The plaintiff for the Buck's Stove and Range Co., also its president, is no other than Mr. Van Cleave, also president of the National Association of Manufacturers. The recent contemptible attacks of the manufacturers' association's hirelings upon the character of the men of labor are still fresh in the public mind. The application for an injunction against the publication as "unfair" of the Buck's Stove and Range Co. by the American Federation of Labor, savored very much of an attempt to use the courts in the prosecution of the manufacturers' association's avowed union-crushing campaign.

We do not for an instant insinuate or affirm that Justice Gould knowingly lent himself to the machinations of the manufacturers' association, but we feel convinced that he was not at all familiar with the unscrupulous means which the manufacturers' association adopts in order to accomplish its purposes, or he might have hesitated to accept in good faith the allegations of the Buck's Stove and Range Co. in regard to its treatment by the American Federation of Labor.

It is quite true that certain union employes to whom the Buck's Stove and Range Co. declined to concede the prevailing hours of labor, made this fact known to their fellow-workers through the columns of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST and through many other publications in various parts of the country, and the American Federation of Labor endorsed their position and published the same.

The entire procedure was truthful, fair, and honorable. We had a right to inform the public as to the facts in the case. Wage-workers and, indeed, many others prefer to give their patronage to firms which employ union labor and whose product, for that reason, is likely to be of a more satisfactory quality to the consumer.

If the champions of the non-union shop are so proud of their stand in the matter and so convinced of their own fairness and wisdom we really fail to see why they should object to the publication of that fact.

If, as they claim, the public is with them and disapproves of unions and their method of "collective bargaining," we should think that the publication of the fact of a firm declining to pay union wages or concede union hours would be its best possible advertisement and one that would

Not so it seems.

be eagerly sought. The Buck's Stove and Range Co. judging from the terms of the injunction desires to stile the voice of labor and enforce a continuous and unbroken silence on the subject of its bad standing with union workmen.

In the application for the injunction it was alleged by the Buck's Stove and Range Co. that its business had suffered seriously from the refusal of union workmen and their friends to purchase its stoves and ranges. But would not absolute silence on our part as to its hostile attitude toward certain union employes be dishonest? Why should we encourage our members and friends to buy the Buck's Stoves and Ranges under the apprehension that this company deals fairly with union labor? Could not union employers then accuse us of unfair discrimination, of trickery and humbug?

If Mr. Van Cleave's opposition to the union shop is a matter of honest and conscientious conviction we should think he would writhe in pain under an injunction which prevents the publication of that fact.

The injunction is printed in full in this issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST. We hope our readers will study carefully every word and every phrase. It is a most remarkable injunction.

Justice Gould seems to base this injunction on the assumption that there has been a combination of numbers of wage-earners "conspiring" to commit unlawful acts. Such is not the fact. The public should understand clearly the difference between combinations for unlawful purposes and the voluntary associations of wage-earners for entirely lawful and proper purposes.

Let us for a moment consider what are some of the aims and purposes of our labor inovement; to render means and opportunity of employment less precarious; to improve the standard of life; to uproot ignorance and foster education; to establish a normal workday; instill character, manhood, and an independent spirit among our people; to establish the recognition of the interdependence of man upon man, and that no man can be sufficient unto himself; that he must not shirk a duty to his fellows; to take children from the factory and the workshop, the mill, the mine, and to give them the opportunity of the school, the home and the playground. In a word, to lighten toil, brighten man, to cheer the home and the fireside, to contribute our effort to make life the better worth living. Το achieve these ends, all honorable and lawful means are not only justifiable, but commendable, and should receive the sympathetic support of every right-thinking American, rather than bitter, relentless antagonism.

But to return to the consideration of the injunction, Justice Gould quotes Judge (now Secretary of War) Taft's definition of a boycott as follows:

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 business intercourse through threats that unless these others do so, that many will cause serious loss to them.

Justice Gould adopted this definition in preference to that found in the Cyclopædia of Pleadings and Practice and seemed to feel that Judge Taft furnished an illustrious precedent for the granting of this injunction.

True, Secretary Taft has an injunction history (see AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST editorial, October and November, 1907), but since he has become a candidate for President he does not seem proud of that record. He has recently tried to "explain" and not very successfully, because he, like many other injunction judges did not think it necessary, before granting sweeping injunctions, to acquire a knowledge of modern economics and the proper application of judicial principles thereto. Is Judge Taft the highest authority on what constitutes a boycott or grounds for an injuncfion of this character?

The very injunction proceedings from which Justice Gould quoted Judge Taft, and other precedents he mentions, were cases in which the injunction privilege was abused by being wrongfully applied. Two wrongs do not make a right in an injunction any more than other affairs of life.

Secretary Taft says 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 business intercourse by threats.

We defy any one to prove a single instance in this case where men or organizations combined to "coerce" others against their will to withdraw patronage from the Buck's Stove and Range Co. Neither coercion, threats, nor conspiracy, in the unlawful sense have been resorted to, yet the whole injunction is based upon this wrong assumption.

Our unions and the men of labor are doing a public service in informing fellow-workers and friends of the fact that certain employers refuse to recognize the associated effort of the workers. This very class of employers organize themselves into combinations and vigorously use the secret blacklist to hound good citizens and union men from employment. They use every weapon, lawful and unlawful, to crush unions. No wonder they are ashamed to have their tactics made public.

The members of organized labor are not themselves obliged to refrain from dealing with the firms on the "We Don't Patronize" list of the American Federation of Labor. The information is given them. There is no compulsion. They are entirely free to use their own judgment.

It must be remembered, however, that for the one firm which declines to employ union labor there are probably a score in the same business which prefer it on account of its greater skill and reliability, and for many other sound, economic reasons. Such firms are conceded to turn out a higher quality of product than non-union concerns. The members of organized labor naturally desire to expend their earnings to the best advantage when purchasing and wish to be informed as to what firms do and do not employ union labor. In purchasing, it is often a question of the quality of the goods offered. The "boycott" is a letting alone of undesirable goods.

No person can be compelled to buy an article. If the purchaser chooses to let alone certain products for any reason or for no reason there is no way of compelling him to buy.

This injunction can not compel union men or their friends to buy the

Buck's Stoves and Ranges. For this reason the injunction will fail to bolster up the business of this firm which it claims is so swiftly declining.

Individuals as members of organized labor will still exercise the right to buy or not to buy the Buck's Stoves and Ranges. It is an exemplification of the saying that: "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink," and more than likely these men of organized labor and their friends will continue to exercise their right to purchase or not purchase the Buck's Stoves and Ranges.

It may not be amiss here to say that in all these proceedings, whether before the court or in the contest forced upon labor by the Buck's Stove and Range Co., no element of personal malice or ill-will enters. Labor is earnestly desirous of entering into friendly relations with employers, and this is none the less true of its desire to reach an honorable adjustment and agreement with the Buck's Stove and Range Co. So long, however, as that company continues in its hostile attitude to labor, denying it the right to organize, discriminates against union members, and refuses to accord conditions of employment generally regarded as fair in the trade, it must expect retaliatory measures; these measures always, however, within the law and for the purpose of ultimately reaching an honorable, mutually advantageous agreement.

The publication of the Buck's Stove and Range Co. on the "We Don't Patronize" list of the American Federation of Labor is only an incident in the history of the case. These stoves might have been let as severely alone by purchasers if they had never been mentioned on that list. It is not the matter of removing that firm from the list against which we primarily protest, it is this injunction invading the freedom of the press.

Justice Gould, in one portion of his opinion, says:

"Defendants [the American Federation of Labor] have the right either individually or collectively to sell their labor to whom they please, on such terms as they please, and to decline to buy plaintiff's stoves; they have also the right to decline to traffic with dealers who handle plaintiff's stoves."

Here he states precisely the whole case of the American Federation of Labor. This is what we have done. This is the sum total of labor's offending. The publication of the Buck's Stove and Range Co. and other firms on the "We Don't Patronize" list is merely giving truthful information at the request of our members as to whether or not certain firms employ union men and concede the other conditions of employment usually granted by those concerns which recognize union labor.

It would seem that having made the above-quoted statement, Justice Gould would have found in it the reason for a refusal to issue the injunction. He, however, goes on to assume that there has been some unwarrantable interference with the plaintiff's business, though neither in his opinion nor in the injunction itself does he make it clear how he arrived at the conclusion that the union course was any other than as indicated in his own language.

We wish to point out that there exists no law under which we could have been haled before any court for the exercise of free speech and freedom

*Heavy type and brackets are ours.

of the press in order to explain to our fellow workers and friends the circumstances under which the Buck's Stove and Range Co. manufactures its goods, and its attitude toward labor. Yet, under the terms of this injunction, we are peremptorily cut off from the exercise of these rights.

We have had occasion in the past to call attention to the fact that the danger of the injunction, as used in labor cases and in no other, is that persons are often forbidden the doing of perfectly lawful things-are enjoined from the exercise of their rights as citizens, and then found in contempt and punished if they fail to submit to the course laid down in the injunction mandate.

It is puzzling to be charged with coercion, conspiracy and what not, and enjoined from the exercise of free speech and free use of the press just as if we had been guilty of those things of which we are entirely innocent.

It is true that there do exist illegal combinations and conspiracies for the purpose of unwarrantable interference with business, or even its destruction, but these are not organized by wage-workers. The criminal conspiracies in restraint of trade are organized by pirate trusts, by rascally promoters, by unscrupulous manipulators of finance.

The air is filled with the lamentations of the innocent victims of such conspiracies, but do we ever hear of these pirates in the business world being enjoined from continuing their depredations or threatened with contempt proceedings if they do not desist from their unlawful practices which even involve property rights. Never! These injunctions are applied to wage-workers exclusively though they involve personal rights ard liberties. It is this denial of equality before the law against which we protest.

In making these statements we are not indulging in unjustifiable or disrespectful criticism of the judge who issued this injunction. We assume that he acted in accordance with the dictates of his conscience and his best judgment.

One point we have been making for years in regard to other injunctions is equally applicable to this case. We contend that the power to issue injunctions involving personal rights and liberties should not be left to the discretion of any judge no matter how wise, how discreet, or how learned.

President Roosevelt in his recent message to Congress made the following comment on the abuse of the injunction power:

"Instances of abuses in the granting of injunctions in labor disputes continue to occur, and the resentment in the minds of those who feel that their rights are being invaded and their liberty of action and of speech unwarrantably restrained continues likewise to grow. Much of the attack on the use of the process of injunction is wholly without warrant; but I am constrained to express the belief that for some of it there is warrant. This question is becoming more and more one of prime importance, and unless the courts will themselves deal with it in effective manner, it is certain ultimately to demand some form of legislative action. It would be most unfortunate for our social welfare, if we should permit many honest and law-abiding cit