Ottumwa semi-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1899-1903, 1901-04-02
COURTS REASONS
Why John P. Reese's Case Was
Affirmed.
HISTORY OF EVENTS LEADING TO 1T
Court Says the Lower Tribunal Had
No Right to Abrosate Right of Free
Speech by Issuing An Injunction
Against Reese.

st. Louis, March 29.-In the United
States court OF appeals yesterday
decision was handed down, sustaining
the position of the United States cir
cult court in the case of John p
Reese. of Abba, Iowa, member of the
executive committee of the United
Mine Workers of America, who was
imprisoned for alleged contempt of an
llnJunctive order and subsequently re-
leased on a writ of habeas corpus. The
decision, which was written by Judge
Adams, deals deliberately with the
rights of courts to punish for the vio-
lation of restraining orders.
History of Case.
| Reese and others went to Kansas in
1899, in the progress of coal strike,
and delivered speeches in behalf of
the strikers. In July. 1899. the West
ern Coal & Mining company, one of
the largest concerns affected by the
strike, secured an injunction against
union and "all others combining, con-
federating or conspiring with them,
who are residents of the state"
After delivering speech Reese was
arrested on the ground that he had
violated the injunction and was SEN
-tenced to term of six months in the
Jail at Fort Scott. Kan
| The case was appealed to Judge
lThayer, who ordered the discharge OF
Reese. 1t was to pass on the merits
iof Judge Thayer's ruling that the case
was referred to higher court Judge
Adams holds that the restraining or,
der does not necessarily have to ap-
ply specially to any person to inflict
punishment for its violation. He says
that fact that the order of court is
defied by those who have knowledge
of it is of itself sufficient justification
for contempt proceedings.
In the case at issue. different circum
/ stances are presented, he held The
i defendant was punished for violating
an order made on behalf of private in
| terests and not because he had defied
the dignity of the court. 1t was not
/ demonstrated. the court further says
that Reese in any manner had con
\ spired or combined to injure the prop
erty of the eomplainants.
What the Court Says.
After Reviewing the points involved
Judge Adams said:
/ From the foregoing, 1t is apparent
that me OlleuSe OIL violating an eX
press restraining order issued at the
suit of a private litigant for his pro
lection is one thing, dependent upor
actual existence of such restraining or
der against the person charged Will
the offense in the suit to which he i:
a party, by name or adequate repre-
sentation; and that the offense of {
person not party to a suit in aiding
or abetting such party to disobey or re
sist restraining order against him
self, or independently and intention
ally thwarting the administration O
4 justice is another and entirely differ
ent thing.
The petitioner had the right &C
corded him by the constitution of the
land and time-honored precedents tt
stand upon the accusation as made
and to defend himself against the
charge as made; namely, that he hat
violated the injunctive order
He exercised the right, and, aftel
being found guilty and imprisoned fol
violating the injunctive order, pro
ceeded to challenge the lawfulness o
his restraint, for the reason that he
was a party to the cause in which the
injunction was issued, and that the
court was without jurisdiction to cal
him to account for violating it."