Wausau pilot. [volume] (Wausau, Wis.) 1896-1940, 1908-12-29
Constitutional Rights.

Constitutional Rights.
In sentencing Gompers, Mitchell and
Morrison to prison for contempt of
court FOR an alleged violation of the
courts injunction in the Bucks Stove
company case, Justice Wright of the
supreme court of the District of Co.
lumbia has placed an emphasis on
government by injunction that is
calculated to prove more embarrassing
to its supporters than to those that have
condemned it as tyrannical device of
political usurpation.
The utter failure of the workingmen
of the United States to stand together
politically, of course, has made the
demands" of labor contemplate IN the
eyes of the politicians, but it will not do
for them to presume too much upon the
lack of solidarity in the ranks of labor.
1t was a court decision in England
that united the workers and made them
a powerful factor in politics and the
spectacle of Gompers, Mitchell and
Morrison condemned to prison stripes
may prove quite as effective in arousing
the 'class consciousness" of the Ameri-
can workers.
In fact, there is every reason to be-
lieve that the men that have been prose
cutting the leaders of the American
Federation of Labor have not been I'M
mindful of its political effect For the
efforts of the defense to obtain decis-
ion before election were repeatedly
thwarted, the court itself apparently
not caring to have its decision impressed
upon the workingmen of the country
while the presidential election was pend
ing
The very fact that Gompers, Mitchell
and Morrison have been sentenced to
prison for contempt of court for having
violated an Injunction which was based
on the federal antitrust law emphasizes
the fact that there yet is to be single
trust magnate imprisoned for violating
the law, though the law was designed
to prevent monopolies and punish
monopolistS
The specific offense of the labor
leaders was the publication of the name
of the stove company in the unfair
list of the official organ of the fedora
ton. 1t was pleaded in defense that to
enjoin the publication of the list was an
infringement of the constitutional
guarantee of free speech and a free
press and if the stove company suffered
injury it had its remedy at law. And
it was contended by the accused that if
publication of the unfair list" could be
euioined the publication of any matter
whatsoever could be forbidden by in
junction aud the liberty of the press
destroyed.
In effect, it is claimed, two constitu-
tional guarantees are nuliiied, the guar
antee of trial by jury and the guaran-
tee of liberty of the ptess and free
speech. And the fact is emphasized
that this instrument of judicial con-
struction has no terrors for the male
factors of great wealth. Their corpor-
atoms may be held in contempt of
court and fined. but they are called
upon to spend no time in Jail. In
theory all men are equal before the law.
They are equal before the law, but they
are not equal before the men en-
trusted with the enforcement of the law.
Yet this decision should be well
coined. For its ultimate effects must
be to define clearly the scope of gov
ernment by injunction" and to empha-
size the fact that the constitution of the
United States is not to be found in the
instrument that was framed and adopt
ed by the founders of the republic, but
in the decisions of the federal supreme
court. When this fact shall be gener-
ally understood, ii may serve to save
citizens the embarrassment that they in
vite when they assume to stand upon
their constitutional rights. "-Milwau-
kee News.