« PredošláPokračovať »
is a high grade investment of prompt interest returns, conservatively based on the great national source of wealth, productive lands.
Each mortgage is a tangible security on a certain area of land. The processes are thoroughly intelligible to every investor. You receive 5%2% net on your investment. 512
. The land on which the mortgage is placed would sell readily for several times the amount of the loan.
The land produces annually several times the amount of interest.
We guarantee a perfect title to the land.
We make all collections and assume all care of the loan thruout its life.
We are a permanent corporation.
We have invested the funds of large financial concerns, here and abroad, for many years.
Our reputation is involved in the success of every loan we handle.
The investment of small sums receives our careful attention. Every inquiry for information will receive a personal reply.
2 JANUARY, 1909
PUBLISHED BY THE OUTLOOK COMPANY. 287 FOURTH AVE., NEW YORK. CHICAGO OFFICE, MARQUETTE BLDG. LAWRENCE F. ABBOTT, PRESIDENT. WILLIAM B. HOWLAND, TREASURER. KARL V. S. HOWLAND, SECRETARY LYMAN ABBOTT, EDITOR-IN-CHIEF. H. W. MABIE, ASSOCIATE EDITOR. R. D. TOWNSEND, MANAGING EDITOR
THB CONVICTION OP
Before stating to our the law, yet history has generally comreaders the facts in mended their action. There are times when the case of the Bucks the higher moral obligation calls on the
Stove and Range citizen to obey the higher law" and set the Company against Samuel Gompers, John unjust human law at naught. If, however, Mitchell, and Frank Morrison, we state he does so, he must be prepared to take the here certain fundamental principles of law punishment for the violation of the law. It which should be applied in interpreting may be moral for him to violate the law those facts and reaching a just decision and moral for the judge to sentence him respecting the case. (I) Government ex- to punishment for violating the law. He ists in three departments—legislative, judi- is sentenced for doing an illegal act, not cial, and executive. It is the business of for doing an immoral act. The Bailey the legislative department to determine case, reported on another page, illuswhat laws are just and expedient, and to trates this principle. Judge Thomas, of enact them ; it is the business of the judi- Alabama, regards the labor law of Alabama cial department to decide whether any
law as a grossly unjust law, and we agree with before the court for adjudication is one
him. He also regards it as unconstituwhich the Constitution gives the legislature tional, and in that opinion we are inclined a right to enact, to determine the meaning to agree with him. But the Supreme of the law, and to apply it to the particular Court of Alabama has held that the law is question in controversy.
In case some constitutional, and in obedience to that one is accused of violating the law, it is the decision he has refused to release from cusbusiness of the court to determine whether tody a colored man brought before him, he has violated it; it is not the business of who, in his opinion, ought to be released. the court to determine whether the law is He refused to release him because he is just or unjust. If the judge thinks the bound, as judge, to carry out the law of law is unjust, he must still pronounce the State as it is interpreted by the sentence of condemnation on the accused higher courts, and he accompanied his before him if the accused has violated the decision with a protest against the law law. Thus, if, in 1850, a man accused of which he was compelled to enforce. violating the Fugitive Slave Law were (III) The judge is appointed to settle brought before an Abolitionist judge who specific questions brought before him that thought the Fugitive Slave Law unjust, the arise under the law and that require an Abolitionist judge would be morally bound interpretation and application of the law. to sentence the violator of that law for his It is not fitting for him to take part in illegal act. The judge is appointed, not public controversies respecting particular to determine what is just, but what is laws, and it is extremely indecorous to lawful, and if he is unwilling to take part take advantage of his position on the in enforcing the law he must resign from bench to take part in such a controversy. the bench. (II) It is not always immoral He should decide the case before him, to violate law or even to set law at defi- and should give calmly and without pasance. Sunday-school scholars are sion the reasons for his decision. He stantly exhorted to imitate the example of should not make his opinion an address Daniel, who violated the law which forbade to the American people for one side or the him to worship Jehovah; the men who other of a publicly debated question in conducted the underground railroad and politics, religion, or sociology. He is to permitted slaves to escape were violating decide specific questions, not to debate
THE CONVICTION OF LABOR
LEADERS: THE FACTS
general questions. The application of these further quotation from the same judge principles to the Bucks Stove Company's given in the following year : " Boycotts, case we will consider after stating what though unaccompanied by violence or the Bucks Stove Company's case is. intimidation, have been pronounced unlaw
ful in every State of the United States
where the question has arisen, unless in In the history of Minnesota ; and they are held to be unthe Bucks Stove lawful in England.” Since Judge Gould's
Company against decision was rendered the Supreme Court the American Federation of Labor and of the United States has decided unanits officers there are two stages : First, imously that a boycott is also a violation the proceedings to enjoin the boycott of the Sherman Anti-Trust Law, because pronounced by the Federation of Labor it is an action in restraint of trade. That against the Bucks Stove Company; sec- Judge Gould was entirely justified in ond, the proceedings to enforce that in- issuing his injunction is, The Outlook junction by punishing the defendants for thinks, clear. A combination for the purcontempt of court in violating it. The pose of injuring the person, the propfacts respecting the first stage can, for erty, or the business of another is an the purposes of interpretation of Judge illegal combination, and it ought to be an Wright's decision, be here briefly stated, illegal combination. That the action of the though, as a dramatic illustration of the Federation of Labor in endeavoring to inmethod and the consequences of a boy- terfere with the trade of the Bucks Stove cott, we may report the facts more fully Company was such a combination it is hereafter. The Federation of Labor pro- impossible to doubt. Indeed, the purpose nounced a boycott against the Bucks to destroy the business of that Company Stove Company in March, 1907, and pub- unless it would come to terms with the lished its name in the “ unfair" list and Federation of Labor was frankly avowed. in the “we don't patronize ” list of its The injunction was issued December 23,
It proceeded in addition 1907. to take vigorous and apparently effective means to prevent tradesmen from buying
The proceedthe Bucks stoves and ranges and to pre
ings for convent individual customers from buying of
tempt of court tradesmen who dealt in the Bucks stoves
against Mr. A suit was brought to en- Gompers, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Morrijoin them from continuing this boycott. son, the first the President, the second No injunction in this suit was issued the Vice-President, the last the Secretary, until after a hearing. It was then is- of the Federation of Labor, were brought sued by Judge Gould, of the Supreme before another Judge of the same courtCourt of the District of Columbia, on Judge Wright. Thus the principle for the ground that such a boycott was which The Outlook has contended, that in itself a violation of law, a position the judge who issues the injunction should stated and defended in an opinion of not determine the question whether it has calm and judicial temper, in striking been violated, and if so, what the penalty contrast to that of Judge Wright, to should be was observed in this case. The which we refer hereafter. In thuopin- result does not indicate that the principle ion Judge Gould quotes the definition is, in application, of any very great practiof boycott given by Judge Taft, when cal value. The facts as they are stated in of the Circuit Court of the United States, Judge Wright's opinion may be briefly sumin 1893: “A boycott is a combination of marized as follows: Judge Gould decided many to cause a loss to one person by the case on the 17th of December, 1907; coercing others, against their will, to with- but the issuance of the injunction was draw from him their beneficial business made to depend upon the filing of a bond intercourse, through threats that, unless by the plaintiff to make good all damages those others do so, the many will cause if the injunction should not be eventually serious loss to them.” And he adds a sustained. This bond was not filed, nor
CONVICTION OF LABOR
the injunction issued, until December 23. these announcements violated the injuncThe interim was occupied by Mr. Gompers tion. Statements made by the defendants in printing and mailing copies of a pam- prior to the injunction are quoted at some phlet in which the Bucks Stove Company length by Judge Wright, including an exappeared on the “unfair" list, his object tract from a volume of Mr. Mitchell's being to get the copies into the mail before published in 1903, four years before the injunction was issued. The more dis- the injunction. This particular sentence, tant copies did not reach their destination whether justifiable or not, was certainly until after the injunction was issued, and not criminal, and had not even a remote Judge Wright holds that, although mailed connection with those contempt proceedbefore the injunction, by mailing them ings four years subsequent to its publicaMr. Gompers violated the injunction, be- tion. It is as follows : “When an injunccause, to quote the Judge's words, “the tion, whether temporary or permanent, mails were his agents, chosen by him as forbids the doing of a thing which is law the medium for delivering to distant ful, I believe that it is the duty of all patripoints; and if, after the injunction be- otic and law-abiding citizens to resist, or came operative, he violated it through the at least to disregard, the injunction." instrumentality of his own hands The justification adduced by Judge through the instrumentality of another Wright for referring to these utterances medium of his own preference is all one." made long before any injunction was issued We find it difficult to take even seriously is that they afford evidence that it was this contention that a man who mails a the predetermination of the defendants to letter which he has a right to mail be- violate the injunction if it should be issued. comes guilty of a violation of the law They seem to us, however, to throw very because it is afterward delivered when little light on the question whether in fact he could not lawfully have delivered the injunction was violated or not. This it in person.
The reader should remem- cannot be said of other voluminous quober that after the circular was mailed tations from the publications and the it no longer belonged to Mr. Gom- speeches of Mr. Gompers after the injuncpers, and if he had wished on the 232 tion was issued. Few, perhaps none, of to stop its delivery he had no legal these utterances do in terms violate the right to do so. According to this branch injunction, but they are manifestly intended of Judge Wright's decision, a perfectly to keep before the labor constituencies innocent act by one person is made crimi- the fact that the Federation of Labor is nal by the perfectly innocent act of another engaged in a bitter war with the Bucks person ; namely, the postmaster in, say, Stove Company. The two following may California. The second act for which con- be taken as types of these sentences : tempt is charged is of more doubtful char- “This injunction cannot compel union men acter. The injunction forbade referring or their friends to buy the Bucks stoves to the Bucks Stove Company, its business and ranges.” · They tell us that we must or its product, in the “we don't patronize” not boycott. Well, if the boycott is illegal,
. or the “unfair" list. After the injunc- we won't boycott. But I have no knowltion was issued display advertisements edge that any law has been passed or were published announcing that Judge any order issued by any court compelling Gould had prohibited the Federation from us to buy, for instance, a range or a stove "publishing the fact that the Bucks Stove from the Bucks Stove and Range Comand Range Company is on the unfair list pany.” These constitute, with one excepof organized labor.” There is a fair op- tion, all the forms, though of course not portunity to argue, on the one side, that all the specific instances, of violation with this was an evasion and therefore a viola- which the defendants are charged. That tion of the injunction, and, on the other exception is, curiously, an act not of Mr. hand, in the words of one of these advertise- Gompers, but of Mr. John Mitchell, who, ments, that “this is not in conflict with the a month after the injunction was issued, injunction, but a statement of fact." Judge presided at a meeting of the United Mine Wright does not, however, discuss this Workers of America in which a resolution question ; he assumes, without debate, that was passed in explicit terms placing the