Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1908-12-25
AFTER HOLIDAYS.
Continued From Page One)

really no limit to the sentence that
can he imposed for contempt of court.
In great many states there IS a lin
il. In New York, for instance six
months is the maximum"
1--WE purpose he added, "to exhaust
every effort to sustain our right to
free press and free speech. I am con-
| iidcnt that the position taken by the
| federation is right and that the citi-
| Zcns of this country will ratify the at
titude of the federation in this mat
ter l believe that they will give to the
trades unionists the same rights and
privileges that are being accorded to
trades unionsts in Great Britain, as
provided for by the trades dispute act
| aGopted there two years ago. Under
| that act a union cannot be mulcted in
damages on account of a strike"
| 1t it not likely that arguments on the
appeal will be heard in the court OF ap-
Eoals of the District of Columbia I'M
! til March, and perhaps not then. The
| defendants have 40 days i'll which to
| pnrfect their appeal and upon a proper
showing the court in it's discretion may
extend the time. Should the upper
court sustain the ruling of Justice
| Wright and a further appeal to the SUI
| preme court of the United States he
| granted the case necessarily would not
come up for decision in the highest
tribunal in the land until the fall term,
which begins next October.
| New York. Dec. 2f.-William j. Bry-
ar was chief among nearly two score
of men, the majority of whom are lead
crs in the labor movement of the coun-
| try, who sent messages today. express
ing their cordial sympathy TO President
Gompers, Vice President Mitchell and
Secretary Morrison of the American
! Federation of Labor.
! The messages which came from every
section of the country ami voiced The
| sentiments of persons IN almost every
! kind of labor conveyed feelings of re-
gret over the courts decision, extend
moral and financial support and in
some instances express Indignation.
Mr.. Bryan. in a telegram dated Pitts
burg, Pa. addressed to Messrs. Com
pers, Mitchell and Morrison. says:
| Sorry to read decision. You did your
duty in testing law. Glad you are TAX
ing appeal
| New York Dec. Accommodating on
the sentence imposed yesterday by
Justice Wright upon the officers of the
American Federation of Labor in the
contempt proceedings throwing out the
Bucks Stove and Range Co. former
Judge Alton B. Parker. of Counsel for
the federation officers, declared today
that the decision of Justice Wright
| would be subjected 20 review by 9
| higher tribunal and that he had Il con
| fdcnt belief THAT the speaking and
| writing which Justice Wright holds
| constitutes contempt of court. cannot
! he prevented either by statute or jul
| dicial decree
The Constitution of every state"
said Mr.. Parker. "proviGcs, in effect
that every citizen may freely speak.
write and publish his sentiments On al
subjects, being responsible for the
abuse of that right and that no law
shall be passed to restrain or abridge
the liberty of speech or of the press.
I'm number of instances attempts
have been made to invoke the aid of
he courts to restrain the publication of
cartoons or written matter claimed to
he libellous but the courts have ever
he Id that the Constitution prohibits any
censorship over the press. either by the
Legislative, executive or judicial de-
partments of the government. An
alyZing the scope of the courts in
junction against the publishing of the
name of tie Buck Stove and Range Co
in the I'VE don't patronize" or unfair"
lists of the American Federattcnist,
Mr.. Parker AYERS that eff the order
can be so construed as to prevent re-
spectful editorial comment upon the
scope of the decree or to prevent a free
discussion Of it. and an expression Of
opinion that if it does seek to prevent
such discussion in such event it Of
tends against the Constitution, then
SO much of it as attempts to do so is |
void
1T has been urged that even if the
court in violation of the Constitution
does make an order prohibiting man
from making a speech on certain |
subject. Or prohibiting a newspaper
from publishing an editorial on the |
same subject, the party enjoined must |
nevertheless obey the decree; if he do |
not the court may punish him. But GER
talniy that which the Constitution |
prohibits. the court may not do any |
more than the Legislature. He who /
elects to disobey the statute, takes the
risk; but if the statute be unconstitu-
tional. no harm can come to him for
ignoring it. And this is so, it is the
courts because the statute is abso-
lutely void. 1t would seem to follow
that decree of a court offending
against the Constitution need not be
obeyed because it is wholly and COM
pletely void. 1t seems to me, that the
judicial department Of the government
VIII not be guilty of absurdity of hold
ing that an unconstitutional enactment
by the law-making department of the
government may be defied by the
hurlbest citizen with impnity because
absolutely void. but that on the other
hand a decree of the judicial depart
L