Rensselaer Republican, Volume 13, Number 16, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 7 January 1881 — “Boycotting”-What is It. [ARTICLE]

“Boycotting”-What is It.

Baitlmoro Bun. The word “Boycotting” has been added recently to the literature of Irish politics. The operation of Boycotting, growing out of the practice first and most signally put upon an Irish farmer of that name very recently, is among the simplest yet surest means of bringing pressure to bear on landlords of any that has been devised. It can only be carried out effectually by a people acting in unison, and tne secrecy with which it is exercised makes it a strong, though impalpable force. The nearest approach to it in England was the system of what was called “picketiifg,” by members of trades union, when on a strike, to prevent “rats,” or non-union men, from engaging to work for employers at wages that the striking trades-unionists had refused. In “picketing” the non-union men were “shadowed;” that is to say, watched wherever they went by union men detailed by a committee for that purpose, a certain number of men taking turn and turn about for this purpose. These picketed workmen were first huietly approached and solicited to join the union. Ifthey refused, a system of espionage and personal annoyance, supplemented by threatening letters, was enforced, that made their lives unbearable. But the English law made “picketing” an offense punishable by imprisonment, and the act of picketing being a visible act the law could be brought into action against oftenders. “Boycotting” is an improvement on this and an amplification of it. There is no overt act In Boycotting for the law to take hold of, and the only law that will touch the case is that of “conspirecy.” But to prove conspiracy the persons who are conspiring must first be discovered. Such a discovery in the case of Boycotting is almost literally impossible. When it is determined by the local council of the league to “Boycott” a landlord, all the persons In his employ are notified of the fact, and are warned that no one will be allowed to work for him any longer. If the crops have yet to be harvested they must remain untouched in the field under peril of the vengeance of the league. When this order is issued the landlord’s far.m hands suddenly desert him. Hired women, doing service in nis household, as suddenlv disappear. The local tradesmen, to whom he has looked for many of the necessaries of life, deoline to deal with him. If he wants to sell any of his cattle or any part of the products of his farm, he can find no buyers. If he has tenants they pay no rent. If he attempts to gather in his unharvested crop or to market any of his farm products he does it at a peril of his life, and is only safe, as he walks about his farm, when guarded by a detail of the constabulary. He is, in point of fact, as completely isolated and cut off from assistance as if he were alone with his family in the midst of the Great Desert. He has no one to whom he can appeal for relief, for in all his neighborhood there Is not one that dare respond with a hand. He is under the ban of the league—but who pronounced the ban he does not know. Tha power that assails him is invisible, but Itis as subtle as the air and as certain as fate Unless conspiracy can be proved there is no law that can deal; with Boycott Hi% hap da have abandoned him. They have a right to do 80 t £®y j are working under a contract. His dometrtics have quitted his roof in a bodyT It is no person’s

business bat their own why they left it. The women of the adjacent village refuse at any price even to do the washing of the fainuy.as they refused Mrs. Boycott. Who can compel them to wash when they have no mind to do it? Thailocal tradesmen will neither sell goods to the Boycotted landlord nor buy his produce. No one has the legal right to say they shall do otherwise. The shadow of the league is over them all. and whether willingly or unwillingly, whether in accord with it or dreading its power, they have to vield obedience to his mandates. In a deaf mute convention at Boston there was a pantomimic row over the charge of their president that the soliciting agents kept back 40 per cent, of 14,600 collected for a proposed home. The scene was a strange one—4oo persons earnestly and excited gesticulating at each other Without an audible word.