Hawaii Holomua, Volume II, Number 37, 13 February 1894 Edition 02 — Boycott. [ARTICLE]

Boycott.

It bas been a matter of sarprise to any stranger who has closely ! watched the affairs in Hawaii , since the rerolution, that the ( people who are loyal to the lawfnl povernKent have never organized, and instituted a regular and properly regulated boycott' The : annexationists Lave adopted that measure long ago. They have in their business re!ations as > shown done all in tbeir power to injore parties who difFer from them political opiuion. They have waged war against business honses as well as against private individuals—in fact their boycott has been complete. We believe that tho time has uow arrived when the great mass of the people should adopt retaliating measores, and that a dist:nctioo sbonld be made between friend and foe. Why should the loyal poople trade with, and spend their money w ith men who uot alone are directly responsible for j the depressed state of atfuirs, but : who daily attempt to inguire and damnge the nation and the eountry. The Huwaiians are principally cash-buyers, and even if their custom is comparatively small, it is of great importauce to most of the shop-keepers in town. We encourago all Hawaiians to only trade with men, and I firms who have remaincd loyal to the canse of Hawaii, and to ceaso all patronage of stores, the own ers of whieh have assisted in overthrowing the Hawaiian selfgovernment. aml shamefully attempted to deprive the Hawaiians of their countiy and their flag. A bo}'cott has ofteu beeu considered illegal, but thero are occasions when the illegalit>ceases, and the measnre becomes both proper and advisable aud !ustifiable. A decision by the Pensylvauia Snprome Court gives an illustration as follows: Philadelphia, Jan. 2.—Justice Deau, in the Supreme Court, today delivered an opinion whieh defiues the legality of a boycott. It was in the case of George M. Cote against Hugh Murphy aiul others, from the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny county, aud the decision rev>erses the jndgment of the lower court. The plaintitf obtained 61,500 damages frora the defendants on the ground that the latter “by unlawful and successful conspiracy injuredhim iu his business.’' The defenda nts were members of the Plauing Mill Association of Allegheny county and of the Pittsburg Building Exchange. The plantitf and six other dealers refused to join the defendants iu boycotting contractors who eon- I ceded to the demand of strikers in May, 1891, aud tbe members of tbe associations then refused to sell them material. In reversicg the judgment the Supreme Court decides tbat when trade associations boycott contractors and dealers who encourage strikes and concede to the strikers’ demand aml when such associations exteud such a boycott among otherdisinterested dealers aueh a boycott is legal. It will be noticed that the learned JuJge decides that there «re instances where the boycott is legal, and we don’t know of any more reasonable ground for carrying it out tban the Hawaiians have against the enemies of their independence and themselves. We sLall in a coming issue furnish the namea of those dealers who are entitled to the , patronage of the loyal citizens, and we haw no doubt th«t in the i future th« atov«a of th« annea»- ’

ticmĪ9ts will be aliowed to stnnd | eiapty, and the connters of the ! : !oval and jost merch:ints crowded ’ by the frientls of Hawaii-nei.