Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-07-25
Gompers Says Courts Order
Was Carried Out,
CLAIMS RIGHT TO DISCUSS
Doesn't Understand the Contempt
Proceedings.
FOR FREEDOM OF PRESS
Charge Made That Labor Leaders
Did Not Obey Judge in Bucks
Stove Case.

Samuel GomperS has issued a statement
In regard to the order of the Supreme
Court Of the District OF Columbia requir-
ing Gompers. Mitchell and Morrison to
show cause why they should not be pun
ished for contempt of court for alleged
violation Of the terms of the Injunction
issued by Justice Gould upon the petition
of the Van Cleave Bucks Stove and
Range Company Of st. Louis. In an ar
tlcle printed In the American Federation
list which appeared today Mr.. Gompers
says he has not yet discovered on what
grounds he is supposed to have violated
the terms of the Injunction
The Van Cleave Bucks Stove and Range
Company appeared upon the list of con-
Germs headed by the words I'VE Don't
Patron1ze. and the courts ordered the
American Federation of Labor to strike
that concern from the list. This. Mr..
Gompers says. was done. and he now
asks. What else would the courts have
us do?"
The petition to the court however.
states that Gompers, Mitchell and Morri
son frequently. regularly and systemat
1cally, willfully and with generalization,
violated the order and final decree alike,
and totally disregarded the same"
Gompers' Jamestown Speech.
speech Of Gompers on Labor day at
the jamestown exposition is cited as an
instance wherein he is supposed to have
intimated that he would not obey the in
junction. 1t is also charged that after
hearing on the petition for the temporary
injunction. and while the court had the
matter under advisement, circular was
issued by Gompers and Morrison in which
a general boycott of the firm was ad-
oavia 81
this circular are said to have been issued,
and the charge is made that the American
Federation of Labor made absolutely no
effort to recall or annul these circulars
after the order for temporary injunction
had been given.
The petition concludes with the state
ment that the defendants have by the
acts means. devices and subterfuges
aforesaid designed and sought to continue
in force and effect and have continued in
violation, disobedience and contempt of
the aforesaid order and Decree the boy
colt and conspiracy
Has Discussed Suit.
Mr.. Gompers speaks of the matter in
this fashion:
ut is quite true that we have editorially
discussed both the suit which the Van
Cleave Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany of ST. Louis brought against the Of
icers of the American Federation Of La
Dor and others and have discussed there
in the principles involved in the injunc-
ton issued by Justice Gould in connec-
ton with the suit.
What other course would either the
Van Cleave Bucks Stove and Range
Company of st. Louis or the honorable
court have us pursue? Here Is a great
case pending before the courts involving
the fundamental rights of the freedom of
speech and the freedom of the press. in
violable rights guaranteed by the consti-
tuition of every state in the Union and the
Constitution of the United States. If it
be held that by editorial review of the
suit and the injunction we have violated
the order OF the court. we say first, that
we are not conscious of so doing, and,
second. that in discussing the suit and
injunction, SO have many eminently re-
spectacle newspapers and magazines and
we were. therefore, in good company
I'VE obeyed the terms of the injunction
and removed the Van Cleave Bucks
Stove and Range Company of ST Louis
from the I'VE Don't PatroniZe List" pub
lished in the American Federationist.
What else would the court have us do?
las regular publication are we to be
prohibited from publishing the news of
the day simply because our Federation or
Its officers are concerned in the news?
Wants Usual Rights.
Are We to be an exception from all
other publications and deprived of the
expression of views and comments upon
case pending in the courts simply be-
cause we are parties interested in its ad-
Indication?
ION the rostrum and lecture platform
are we to be estopped from referring to
and reviewing a cause involving the fun
damental guarantees of the liberty of
speech and of the press?
What hope can our people entertain
for reform at the hands of the law-mak-
ing bodies for any evil unless the free
dom of the press and of speech be main
tanned at all hazards?
I'VE cannot bring ourselves to believe
that the court will hold that we have
been In contempt of its order. To so hold
would indeed be the severest blow to free
dom of the press and freedom of speech,
and the sooner the country shall definite
ly know it the better