The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-12-09
JAIL FOR AN IDEA.
Continued from First Page1

~ 9ee.5-t 49, -
6fa2se ' b1 Reese l W. Mas l9 Tlege to have been
committed. The trial proceeded during
the afternoon. Near the close of the ses-
sion Judge Williams said to the prose-
you will have to secure better evidence
than you have presented or this trial Will
I be brought to a close"
Reese and his friends were jubilant, be
ieving that the court was about to throw
the case out of court. They anticipated
only a favorable verdict.
groes came to Fort Scott from Yale on
the Missouri Pacific. At the opening OF
court Saturday morning Judge Williams
Counsel must not be influenced by the
statement of the court concerning the tes-
timony last night The court has since
read the order of injunction and finds
! that it is broader than he thought 1t
were maSsed in the hall outside of the
court room. An official for the mining
one by one their names were called
and one of the friends of Reese SAYS:
they were to say. They got badly mixed
on the stand, but their evidence seems
We're brought to Fort Scott
The injunction issued by the court re-
strained long list of Kansas men from
conspiring, confederating or combining to
interfere with the business OF this com
Danv The only case against Reese was
brought when he followed the public road
to the company's premises at Yale and IN
that road made a speech to the men
Reese is a quiet, dignifed man. He is
not '.fre-eating agitatOr'' but is guard
ed in all his utterances.
Reese was sentenced to three months in
Jail and the costs Of the case, about $l;0eO
were assessed against him. The opinion
sSov Clearly how small the evidence Of
guilt We're: In passing sentence, one OF
the things Judge Williams said follows:
~ soc nv the action and conduct of this
man that he is not an ordinary miner
and we must deal with him as BELTS his
station.
This assertion made some of the min
ers believe that the court had openly in
suited them, because Reese Wore better
10th 4 0EAd n 81
world, and, they regard the statement of
the judge as an indication that the var
ious stages of aristOcracy are the sub
jects of special privileges in his court:
rms IS the poison so%4 IN IN me HniI I in %
dgnant. 1t was but another peg upon
which to hang the charge that the court
went out of its legal way to punish Reese.
The corporation side of the case is some
what different. The attorneys for the
prosecution claim that Reese is a bad
man. One of the lawyers said to the
State Journal correspondent: Reese is an
a eitatOr: a malcOntent; an anarchist He
used violent language and intm1dated
the men in violation of the order and
Yet the opinion of the judge says this
charge was not proven. Then, too the
opinion says the speech made by Reese
which was clearly proven to EaYe been
a sensible one from his point Of view and
not violent. IS held to be a crime because
lit was unnecessary This statement
may be found in the opinion.
The friends of Reese have been making
by the court but its publication was IN
the hands of the attorney for the corpOr-
aIlOn Inc olale JOuIUetl- correspondent,
after a prOtracted effort, secured a copy
of it and publishes it herewith:
It was dictated at the time he rendered
it coupled with the instructions that it
should not be made matter of record
In the opinion as it now stands the judge
| doesn't say as he said in the court room,
that the court made up its mind then
and hasn't changed it since, that it was
prestige of the executive committee of
the miners union"
One of the charges against Reese was
that he had used the word scab in re-
ferTing to the nOn-uniOn miners. In de
I do not believe he said that. He is too
guarded a man to use such an express
pared for publication;
Following the idea that the miners have
no cause for the strike, the judge said in
his opinion:
From the testimony and the admissions
injunction the strike seemed to have less
cause for its existence than any strike
court.
1T was admitted at the time that the
miners who at last went out upon a
! strike had no grievance whatever per
sOnally or collectively against the mine
operators. 1t was admitted that it arose
from some grievance some one in the In
dian territory had 1t was not denied
tented and comparatively happy. 1t was
proven that many of them were in the
their own buggies and carriages and that
there We're more vehicles Of that kind
the country than by the same number Of
individuals in any other prescribed local
ity in the state of Kansas.
The court came to the conclusion from
the proof because it was shown in the
all mines and the miners had voted large
Y against goin1gg; out upon strike and
by the executive committee and perpet-
uated for the purpose of Keeping up the
prestige and power of this committee
Then follows the order of injunction.
Continuing with his opinion Judge VIII
THE court agrees with the learned
counsel for respondent as to the force
of this order The question arises. has
this man violated it? Taking into cOnsid-
Grafton his standing, his position as an
officer of the organization known as the
United Mine Workers of America. he tes-
cutive board and that he was either sent
here or came here last April for the ex-
that is his own testimony: and that he
has remained here ever since. lie admits
in passing might say, that having heard
that might be a violation OF 1t, ne must
apprise himself fully of its force and ef-
feet, if he heard it was in existence. He
refrains from 50 doing at ms own peru.
The defense claimed that Reese was not
a citizen of Iowa. The order states plain
" and contains only the names of Kan
dition existing in Kansas; Discussing
this proposition Judge Williams says in
his opinion;
Something is said in passing by the
learned counsel. who is always very tair
to this court about this order being di-
rected against a citizen or citizens OF the
state of Kansas.
Il think that is an inadvertence in the
order. The intention of the court was TO
make the order effective in Kansas and
its violation must be in the state of Kan
sas within the Jurisdiction of this court
But be that as it may, no court Will per
nit any one TO come into the district and
do what the citizens of the district are
prohibited from doing. and the wording
of it is quite immateria1 so far as that
is concerned.
Now the action of this defendant must
be judged somewhat by the motives that