The defendants, Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank Morrison, were found guilty of contempt of court in making certain publications prohibited by an injunction from the supreme court of the District of Columbia. They were sentenced to imprisonment for twelve, nine, and six months respectively, and this proceeding is prosecuted to reverse that judgment.
The order alleged to have been violated was granted in the equity suit of the 'Buck's Stove & Bange Company v. The American Federation of Labor and others,' in which the court issued an injunction restraining all the defendants from boycotting the complainant, or from publishing or otherwise making any statement that the Buck's Stove & Range Company was, or had been, on the 'Unfair' or 'We Don't Patronize' lists. Some months later the complainant filed a petition in the cause, alleging that the three defendants above named, parties to the original cause, in contempt of court and in violation of its order, had disobeyed the injunction by publishing statements which either directly or indirectly called attention to the fact that the Buck's Stove & Range Company was on the 'Unfair' list, and that they had thereby continued the boycott which had been enjoined.
The defendants filed separate answers under oath, and each denied: (1) That they had been in contempt or disregard of the court's orders. (2) That the statements complained of constituted any violation of the order; and, on the argument, (3) contended that if the publication should be construed to amount to a violation of the injunction, they could not be punished therefor, because the court must not only possess jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, but must have authority to render the particular judgment. Insisting, therefore, that the court could not abridge the liberty of speech or freedom of the press, the defendants claim that the injunction as a whole was a nullity, and that no contempt proceeding could be maintained for any disobedience of any of its provisions, general or special.
If this last proposition were sound, it would be unnecessary to go further into an examination of the case, or to determine whether the defendants had in fact disobeyed the prohibitions contained in the injunction. Ex parte Rowland, 104 U.S. 612, 26 L. ed. 864. But we will not enter upon a discussion of the constitutional question raised, for the general provisions of the injunction did not, in terms, restrain any form of publication. The defendant's attack on this part of the injunction raises no question as to an abridgment of free speech, but involves the power of a court of equity to enjoin the defendants from continuing a boycott which, by words and signals, printed or spoken, caused or threatened irreparable damage.
Courts differ as to what constitutes a boycott that may be enjoined. All hold that there must be a conspiracy causing irreparable damage to the business or property of the complainant. Some hold that a boycott against the complainant, by a combination of persons not immediately connected with him in business, can be restrained. Others hold that the secondary boycott can be enjoined, where the conspiracy extends not only to injuring the complainant, but secondarily coerces or attempts to coerce his customers to refrain from dealing with him by threats that unless they do, they themselves will be boycotted. Others hold that no boycott can be enjoined unless there are acts of physical violence, or intimidation caused by threats of physical violence.