Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-12-23
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR OFFICIALS.
Morron Samuel John Mchsl
A|L TERMS FOR C0MPERS, MITCHELL AND MORRISON

the attitude taken by Mr.. Gompers since
the injunction was issued, his writings,
interviews and public addresses, re-
marked:
"All of which was done, all OF which
was published. all of which was circulated
in wfllful disobedience and deliberate Vio-
latiOn of the Injunction and for the purpose
generally, and in pursuance of the orig
inal common design Of himself and con-
federates, to bring about the breach of
plaintiffs existing contracts with others;
deprive plaintiff OF property (the GOOD
will of it's business without due process
of law: restrain trade among the sew
eral states; restrain commerce among the
several states
AS to Secretary Frank Morrison. the
court declared that he had full knowledge
of all that was being done. took part in
the preparation and publication of the
American Federationist of April. 1908.
with complete knowledge of it's contents.
With knowledge and approval of the
other writings and speakings hereinbe-
fore specified against Gompers he (Morri-
SOM took part in the circulation and dis
tribution in large numbers of each and
every issue of the Federationist contain
ing them, as hereinbefore specified against
Gompers and with the same purpose and
intent"
Mitchell Is Blamed.
Concerning Mitchell the court pointed
placed him within the pale of the law.
He quoted from AIitchell's book on "Or-
ganized Labor. Its Problems. Purposes
and Ideals certain passages wherein
Mitchell declared that it was the duty of
all patriotic and law-abiding citizens to
resist or disregard injunctions when they
forbade the doing of a thing which is
lawful
Mitchell also was credited with signing.
with full knowledge, the urgent appe al
which accompanied the twenty-Seven
thousand or more circular letters to the
various secretaries. as heretofore speci-
field against Gompers and Morrison, and
with full knowledge of their contents.
their distribution and with the
same purpose and intent" The court also
referred to the presence of Mitchell in
the chair January % 1908, at the annual
OF the United Mine Workers
of America, when resolution was adopt
ed placing the Bucks Stove and Range
Company on the unfair" list.
Comment on Defense.
Continuing as to all three Of the defend
ants. the court said:
"In defense of the charges now at bar
neither apology nor extenuation is deem
ed fit to be ambraced. No claim Of un-
meant cortunlacy is heard. Persisting In
violation of the order, no
defense is offered save these:
THAT the injunction UD 1nfringed the
guaranty of freedom Of the
press, and CD 1nfrnged the constitutional
guaranty of freedom of speech
These defenseS do not fill the measure
Of the case; the injunction was designed
to stay the general conspiracy of which
fI,n NIL i'm, Of hn i,.'s md
don't -patronZe" lists We're but incidents:
the injunction interferes with no legiti-
mate right of criticism or comment that
Jaw has ever sanctioned. and the respond
ents' intimatinn that ii does so is a mock
cry and a pretense."
In reference to the freedom of the press,
the court declared that the Constitution
nowhere conferred the right to speak, to
print or to publish.
Freedom of the Press.
1T guarantees said he. '.onIy that in
so far as the federal government is con-
it's Congress shall not abridge it
and leaves the subject to the regulation
If the several states where it belongs
who can be persuaded asked the
court, continuing. that the penalizing of
false and malicious libels upon the in
Lesrity of honorable men, or ISLANDERS
upon the virtue of chaste women, is an
outrage upon the constitutional rights
IF the vilifier?'
The court inquired if "those of thought
'ul and sincere reflection escape the I'M
harmony between claims for a right of
litter license in speech and press and the
by law of libels and the
of ISLANDERS.
NO right the court added Ito publish
either the libel or the SANDER can be sus-
aimed, except upon the theory of a right
% do wrong
The court declared that an elaboration
IF his argument with respect to the free
lom of the press would usually be quite
agreeable to my desire. yet" he said.
these suggestions sound the hollowness
If the defense, and to essay more might
;avor of an inquiry into the correctness
If the injunction ordered by Mr.. Justice
Gould. d duty already taken up and dis
charged by ADLER hands than mine
Right of Free Speech.
In dismissing from further consideration
he contention that the injunction invaded
he right of free speech and of the press,
he court held:
THE position of the respondents in
.olves questions vital to the preservation
Df social order, questions which smite the
of civil government and upon
which the supremacy of the law over
and riot verify depend.
Are controversies to be determined in
tribunals formally constituted by the law
Of the land for that purpose. or shall each
who falls at odds with another take his
own furious way? Are causes pending
in courts to be decided by courts for liti-
sants or the view of each distempered
itigant imposed upon the courts?
Are DEGREES of courts To look for their
execution to the supremacy OF law, or
tumble in the wake of unsuccessful
SuitorS who overset them and law about
the matter with their own hands, in tur-
bulence proportional to the frenzy of
their disappointment
In the opinion of the court. even where
a tribunal had fallen into error in the
of cause which it was in
vested with jurisdiction to hear and de-
termine," the duty and necessity of
obedience remained nevertheless the
same.
Wrong or Right, Mandatory.
And said the court Il place the de-
cision of the matter at bar distinctly on
the proposition that were the order con-
fessedly erroneous, yet it must have been
obeyed WOrden VS.. Searls. III L. s.,
~. 1t is between the supremacy of law
over the rabble or its prostraton under
the feet OF the disordered throne.'
'''rhe Interpretation of the law of a mat
ter by an appropriate judicial tribunal set
ties that matter between the parties: else
there is not anywhere TO be had a settle
ment which takes impartial account of both
sides; even If ii be said that tribunals
now and then fall into error in particular
matters, Yet this error lies in the incom-