New-York tribune., 1908-12-24
GOMPERS SENTENCED
Continued from first page.

of the District of Columbia issued an Injunction
which later was made permanent forbidding the
publication of the company's name in these lists.
PRESIDENT Gcmpers, in editorial In The Ameri-
can Federatonist' of January last made known
his intention not TO obey the courts order.
tending that the injunction issued was in deroga-
ton OF the rights OF labor and abuse of the in
junctive power Of the courts Gompers Mitchell
and Morrison subsequently cited for
tempt. and this phase the case been before
the court for many months, the proceedings taking
the form of the hearing of testimony before
examiner and many arguments
Justice Wright's decision to-day was a scathng
denunciation Of the defendants, He recited the
conditions anteceding the injunction and referred
TO the fact that for twenty-five years the Buck
plant had operated ten hour shop and always
had maintained open shop He also spoke of
the numerical strength of the American Federation
of Labor. with its 100000 members and of its re-
peated Endorsement of the boycott of the Buck
Stove and Range Company, through THE Amer
lean Federationist the federations official organ,
speeches by the defendants, letters circulars etc
The court referred to the Of the I'VE don't
patronize list and Unfair list OF the labor
ganization, and said that members were forced
and coerced into supporting it whether indvid-
ualy willing or unwilling approving or disapprov-
ing. by various methods The court read extracts
from numberssof resolutions of labor organizations
bearing on the Buck tending to show the
methods Of influencing members OF unions, land
these methods the court remarked. seem TO be
known persuasion " The customers of the
stove company, the court said. had been intimi-
dated, browbeaten and coerced cut of their busi-
ness relations with their customers by direct in
reference with and boycott of their tthe custom
ers) trade relations with their customers and
the public generally
Following exhaustive discussion OF the
spraces in restraint of trade, Justice Wright said:
From the foregoing 1t ought to apparent to
each and all of them, have combined together for
!. Bringing about the breach of plaintiffs
listing contracts with others; ,.,o ,.a,o =.
the goodwill Of its business) without due process
3. Restraining trade among the several states.
l. Restraining commerce among the several
The ultimate purpose Of the defendants the justice
said. In this connection. unlawful. their con-
certed project offence against the law, and. he
added. they were guilty of crime Coming to the
question of the violation Of the courts injunction
Justice Wright said:
injunction. determined to violate 1t il issued. and
had. IN advance of the Injunction c0unseied al
members Of the labor unions and Of the American
Federation Of Labor and the public geneTalE Eo0 10
the following reference. which points out also the
general plan and mutual understanding of the or
ganizations and their various members:
READS FROM GoMPERs's WRITINGS.
The Court here read of extracts from re-
ports of proceedings Of conventions of the Fedora
tion reports President Gompers. editorials from
the columns The American Federationist'' and
the labor press generally. in support of his state
ment that there was pre-determination to violate
Discussing the actions of the defendants since the
issuance of the injunction, Justice Wright said:
Having in mind what. IN the foregoing deiinea-
ton, indicates that these respondents dld 9e!oTe
mine TO ilfuly violate 1t did consel others to
do the same, let now turn to their sayings ana
doings since the decision of Mr.. Justice Gould was
formally announced and the order OF Injunction it
self put into technical operation by the gy1ng od
the injunction bond On December H. lSN 5ne
opinion of filed in the case; the ORD er
ing of the undertaking required by 1t was consum-
mated December q. and am disposed now TO
look at the separate conduct of each respondent
with view Of recording his individual responsible
ity in sufficient detail.
The Court. after detailing at great length the at
ttude taken by Mr.. Gompers since the Injunction
was issued his writings interviews and public ad-
dresses. remarked:
All Of which done, all of which was pub
lished. all Of which was circulated in wiiful dlsooe,
dience and deliberate violation OF the lnJqnGHon
and for the purpose Of melting and accompssh@thg ing
the Violation geneIay ana an in and confeer
bring about the breach OF plalntlfr exist
1roceSs Of law: restrain trade among the several
states: restrain commerce among the seNeTdi
states
AS to Secretary Frank Morrison, the Court de-
clared that he had full knowledge of all that was
being done and took part in the preparation ana
publication of The American Federationlst OF
April. 1905. with complete knowledge Of its con-
tents
Concerning Mitchell, the court pointed ~ NA-
rous acts by him which. he said, placed him
within the pale Of the law. He quoted from
NIifcbeIl's book 'OrganiZed Labor: Its PROB
lens Purposes and Ideals certain passages where
in Mitchell declared that it was the duty OF ali
patriotc and law-abidng citizens to resist or dis
regard injunctions when they forbade the doing
of a thing which lawful Mitchell was also
credited with signing with full knowledge the
urgent appeal which accompanied the twenty
seven thousand or more circular letters to the va
riors secretaries as heretofore specified against
C;ompers and Morrison. and with full knowledge
oe their contents counselIing their distribution
and with the same purpose and intent Inc
Court also referred to the presence of MltcheI IN
the chair on January 25, 1905, at the annual con-
vention of the United Mine Workers OF America
when a resolution adopted placing the BUCK
stove and Range Company on the unfair list
THE DEFENCEs INSUFFICIENT
Continuing as to all three of the defendants, the
Court said:
In defence of the charges nov at a bar ne neither
apologv nor eXtenusJton Is deemed NJ 70 >, -
TTaced; no claim Of unmeant coIiuInaCS Is ddor
DeTssting in contemptuous violation OF the oh1eP, i
no defence is offered save these ilaL ] Le ~
lion % nfringed the cons % ~ -
freed0m Of the press and % infringed me con-
ssiff1tionai guarantee OF freedom of speech -,
These defences do not MI the ieasui .! III % yen
oaee- the Injunction designed 70 stay tlt go
eTaI ,Pd we don't patronize' lists only
"a in"dent- The Injunction interferes with no Ieglt-
mate ,oned r,gnt on and the respondents intmation
that IT does so is mockery and pretehce'
In reference to the freedom of the press the JUS
.ica declared that the Constitution nowhere con
farred the right to speak, TO print or to publish
He said:
# guarantees only that in so far as the federal
sIrtdge il and leaves the subject to the regula-
ton Of the several states, where IT. beI3nsS t I M4
can be persuaded that the renazing OF laiSe i aHa
malicious bels upon the integrity on iloioI tple