The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1908-09-19
Judge Parker on Behalf of Re-
spondents Protested Against
the Adjournment.
BUCK STOVE COMPANY
PROCURED THE DELAY
Responder >mpers, Mitchell
MorriA ~ = for a Jury
~ QG>\
WASHINGTON,

O' ~SI. AH
tempt case against then V>c \the
American Federation Of @ y
.uel Gompers, John MitchehN> *
Morrison, was adjourned, anu. 1ays
given to each side, sixty days n all.
to take testimony. This will carry
the case over until after the election.
The three respondents were in court
and all the members OF the executive
council of the American Federation of
Labor who had been enjoined by the
original injunction.
Judge Alton B. Parker, OF New
York, and Ralston & S1ddons, at|or--
neys for the labor leaders, protested
against the postponement, and an
nQunced their readiness for trial: but
Daniel Davenport of Bridgeport, Conn.,,
ana w. C. Sullivan, attorneys for the
Bucks Stove & Range company, the
petitioners, raised the point that 'er-
tain issue Of fact had been raised by
especially ds to John Mitchell, and
asked for time in which to take testi-
mony.
Justice Gould, who presided, In
granting the postponement, said he
had not read the petition or the re-
turns, and was not prepared to go
on with the case.
In their answers to the petition of
the Bucks Stove & Range Company
to have Samuel Gompers, John
Mitchell and Frank Morrison. Of the
American Federation Of Labor, pun
ished for contempt on the charge Of
violating the order Of Justice Gould
enjoining them from continuing the
boycott against the stove company by
publishing the name of that company
in the "we-don't- -patronize' list, which
was filed today in the supreme court
Of the district, the three defendants
named asked that the issues be tried
before jury and not by Justice
Gould alone. Most of the specifica-
lions Of the petition relate to pt1blf-
cations in the american Federation
ist," tho official organ of the Fedora
ton, of which Mr.. Gompers is' editor;
and to public addresses made by him
length than those Of Messrs. Mitchell
and Morrison. both Of whom profess
ltterances quoted. For the most part
Mr.. Gompers admits the correctness
Of the quotations from his speeches
interviews and editorials but none OF
them were intended to be In contempt
OF any decree of the court.
The principal charge made in the
petition refers to criticisms of the
injunctions which were made by Mr.
Gompers in an editorial published in
the Federationist for February. 1908
in which he characterized the injunc-
tion as an evasion of the liberty OF
the press and Of the right Of free
speech, and further said it would be
impossible to comply with all It's
terms. Replying to the charge, Mr.
Gompers. Mr.. Mitchell and Mr.. Nor
rison united in saying:
The Answers Of All.
Answering the seventeenth para.
graph of the petition this respondent
red to is only to be understood prop
erly by being read in its entirely, an6
he accordingly, for the full content.
thereof, refers to the files of this
court. He denies that said editoria
constituted in any respect the con
tempt of court, or that it was in any
degree disrespectful of the action O.
the court. On the contrary, he say!
that it contained only such fair ant
temperate criticism as he had a righ
to indulge in as citizen of the con
duct of one of the officers of the gov
ernment, and that the order and de
cree herein passed were never prop
erly intended to take away from hin
his rights as an American citizen, bu
intended to prevent the doing of act
styled unlawful and pursuant to
supposed unlawful conspiracy to in
1ure. That there never existed an,
conspiracy, combination, agreement. o
understanding which resulted in an,
degree IN bringing about the publ
cation Of said editorial, but that tn
passage of the decree raised a nev
issue, to wit, whether the court hat
acted within or without the limit
prescribed by justice that the issue
which was one only incidentally re
lating to the pending case, but whicl
hight have been raised by a case be
tween entirely different parties quit
as we'll, was the only issue discussed
by him. From his viewpoint he be
lieved the action of the court to ~
erroneous, not because the Buck
Stone and Range company or tn
American Federation Of Labor wer
the parties involved, but because, a
he believes, the underlying principl
Of the decision was to be found /,
an erroneous conception Of right
that in said editorial, therefore tn
mention Of the Bucks Stove and Rang
company's name was merely an in
cident and not the object of tn
debate.
Mr.. Gompers, in replying to tn
charge. that he favored the boycot
ten, years ago. says that, not being
clairvoyant, he could not then hav
known the decision in this case, an