Your ShelfYour Projects

A Blow at the Boycott by a Wisconsin Court

5%

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Sep 27, 1906

FromReview and Herald, Vol. 83, No. 39.

Read the full edition

A Blow at the Boycott by a Wisconsin Court

By W. A. COLCORD

BOYCOTTING on the part of union labor was dealt a heavy blow by the decision of Circuit Court Judge Chester A. Fowler, of Fond du Lac, Wis., rendered Aug. 28, 1906, in the boycott suit for twenty-five thousand dollars damages brought by Otto B. Shultze, a Racine baker, against the Trades Labor Council, Benjamin D. Ressen, and others. Referring to this decision, a report in the Washington Post of August 29 says:—
“The decision holds illegal the contract exacted from the boss bakers by the union men, in an effort to enforce the closed shop. The Trades Council and the individual members are enjoined from using the ‘unfair list.’ The boycott is declared an actionable conspiracy to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose; Shultze is allowed to recover damages of twenty-five hundred dollars for the loss of profits from the time of the commencement of the boycotting acts up to the time of the trial, and thirty-five hundred dollars in damages for the amount of injury to his business and property in relation to its selling value.”
The decision, in part, is as follows:— “The plaintiff has suffered a permanent and all but destructive injury to his business, which has been caused by the combined acts and the attitude of organized labor.
“And injury to one's business and trade is on the same footing as an injury to his tangible property, and the law furnishes a remedy for one as well as the other.
“The acts complained of are, in my views, plainly in violation of section 466a, Wisconsin Statutes of 1898, as construed by the Supreme Court. This statute makes any two or more persons who shall combine, associate, mutually undertake, or concert together for the purpose of wilfully or maliciously injuring another in his trade or business, by any means whatsoever, or for the purpose of maliciously compelling another to do or perform any act against his will, guilty of an offense punishable by fine and imprisonment.”
The court declares that the contract the union sought to force on the boss bakers “was in itself an illegal contract; in that it would by its terms obligate the plaintiff to employ union labor only as distinguished from non-union labor; and it would obligate him to maintain a ‘closed’ as distinguished from an ‘open shop.’”
In our religious liberty work it will be well to remember these court decisions in which boycotting is held to be “illegal,” “an actionable conspiracy,” and deserving of punishment by “fine and imprisonment” when carried on by organized labor; for, in fulfilment of the sure word of prophecy (Rev. 13:16, 17), the time has come,—and the future is to reveal more of it,—when organized religion advocates and practises boycotting for religious ends, especially in the matter of coercing men into Sunday observance.
In 1893 a “colossal boycott” was not only urged, but actually carried into effect, against the Chicago World's Fair by prominent church leaders and church organizations in this country, because the directors of the fair did not see fit to close the fair gates, after the first two weeks, on Sunday.
Thus Dr. French, about the time of the opening of the fair, speaking at the Wesley church, at Minneapolis, on June 11, 1893, said:—
“We do not yet know what the outcome may be, but if the gates are opened, we should like to join and help push forward a colossal boycott of the fair.”—Minneapolis Tribune, June 12, 1893.
The report of the regular weekly conference of Baptist Ministers of Chicago, held June 26, stated that,—
“Dr. Henson was in favor of a strict boycott's being declared against the exposition. The Rev. Dr. Haynes urged the adoption of a stronger protest against the action of the directory, to be circulated among the Baptists of the country, whom he claimed numbered five million, and containing a provision binding Baptists everywhere to remain away from the fair.”—Chicago Times, June 27, 1893.
About the same time the following item appeared in the New York Mail and Express:—
“The executive committee of the Ohio societies [of Christian Endeavor] is now in session in Cincinnati, and on Monday morning will receive a telegram from Chicago informing them if the gates have been opened on the previous day. Every Christian Endeavor Society in the world will be notified, and efforts will be made at once to carry the boycott into effect. This will extend not only to the several million young people in the society, but to all persons whom these members can influence. This will doubtless seriously affect the World's Fair gate receipts.”
A more deliberate or more extensive boycott was perhaps never planned. For months, in consequence largely of this boycott no doubt, the fair did not pay running expenses.
And not only did these people advocate boycotting the fair, but insisted that the troops should be called out to enforce the unconstitutional Sunday-closing measure which they had obtained from Congress, and forcibly close the fair on Sunday. This is the spirit that is working in the Sunday-law movement.
If boycotting on the part of organized labor is wrong and deserving of legal suppression and court condemnation, surely church boycotting must be doubly so.
W. A. COLCORD.