The Fairmont West Virginian. (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1904-1914, 1908-12-26
MAKING MARTYRS.

81 the decision Ct the Supreme
Court d, the District of Columbia,
Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and
frank Morrison, oficers of the Amer
lean Fed<tation of Labor. are adjudg-
e in contempt and centenced to
terms in jail ranging from six months
~ one year. The proceeding, of
which this IL dramatic climax. orig
mated In the boyr.tt ar,fust tie
Bucks Stove and Range Co, OF st.
Louis. The Bucks Company sought
and secured an Injunction against the
prosecution Of the boycott by the
American Federation OF Labor. The
organ OF the Federation very vigr.
ot,sly criticised the injunction and
Gompers. Mitchell and Morrison made
a number OF public attacks upon the
court and the Bucks Company.
Technically. therefore. there Is no
doubt that the taree defendants were
guilty Of contempt But the TntellI-
gencer does not hesitate to express
It's profound conviction that the sah-
fences imposed are harsh. unjust and
impoHtic. says the Wheeling Intelli-
sencer. The immediate effect of the
courts action will be to make these
men martyrs. and should they ever
go to prison. from their cells they will
WELD more Influence and appeal to a
larger audience tilsn any curt in the
land Nothing is clearer tnan that
we must eventually have some modEft-
cation of the writ OF Injunction In la
Dor cases. The Intelllgencer has more
than once pointed out that this writ
has been abused by employers who
sought 1t. not so much for any actual
prottcttsn 1t gave them. as for the
fact that under the prevailing prac-
tice, otfenses were punished without
Jury trial. Many good lawyers, nota-
bly, Hon. W. P. Hubbard. have express
ed the opinion that Injunction should
not be issued without notice: others
have gone farther and taken the view
thnt violation of lnjuncti ms. or acts
of contempt committed elsewhere than
in the presence OF the court. should be
subject to jury trill Sooner or later
We must set some sufficient Limitation
to the use of the injunction writ, and
It is possible that 1t may be by enc
of these methods.
Concerning the language used nv
the learned Justice OF the district SUI
preme court, in sentencing the &C
cused, It is. impossible to avoid the
thought that 1t shows prejudice and
bias. fiat ought not to exist In any
court. Since Judge Grosscnp INDUCED
in verbal Flagellation OF Judge Lam
dis in the STANDARD Oil case. strong
language by the Courts seems to nave
become fashionable. It is not judi
cfai or dignffied to refer TO such men
as Samuel Gompers and John Mitch
ell as misguided leaders swollen
with pigmy power" or to describe a
line of action in which they were I'M
doubtedfy sincere, as "unrefined in
suit coarse affront," and vulgar
indiGnity-" Both Gompers and Mitch
ell have rendered great public SER
vices; they are men Of affairs and
would certainly konw how to describe
course of which they disapprove
without approaching so near to bill
lingsgpte.
In this particular case. the ends of
justice could have been much better
served by the imposition of SEN
tence that made plain the law, with.
out handing out to the offenders the
opportunity for a nlartyrdom, of
watch they may be only too glad to
take advantage.