Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-09
EXAMINER TO HEAR
CASE AGAINST LABOR
Continued From First Page)

any one or those WTltlnSS anu dSh Soui
honor to say whether or not, in your
Judgment, there was any intent on the
part of those writing the editorials and
making returns to be guilty OF a con-
tempt of this court am satisfied that we
would convince you that there is no such
intent.
II seems to me that at the very heart
is the fact referred to by my associate
here. Those gentlemen do not put their
finger on any violations since the cate
that decree was entered. months and
months ago. Therefore, they show your
honor that the decree which you made
has become effective. What they are seek
ing now is punishment for what they hope
to persuade the court was offenses OF long
ago.
TT seems to me that the order of your
court is being obeyed. Obeyed because
they are content with it? Not at all; not
at all. They have been compelled
But your honor. in your heart. as well
as with your heart, would say God
speed your appeal. No judge ever abused
an appeal. That contest is going on all
the time. -,
II do beg your honor that you will
give us opportunity to present this case,
and that the outcome we know will be
right and in accordance with justice.
Politics were carefully eschewed by
counsel an either side in the remarks to
the court, and any hope which may have
been entertained by the labor leaders or
their opponents of securing political cap
ital from the disposition of the matter was
dispelled by the action of the court The
sixty days postponement will leave the
matter in statu quo until after the presl-
Dental election.
The courtroom was crowded with law
yers, men prominent in labor councils and
interested spectators. Additional seating
capacity arranged in anticipation of a
large gathering was occupied and many
stood throughout the hour consumed by
counsel in an effort to persuade Justice
Gould that the matter was of sufficient
Importance to be considered during vaca
ton.
Labor Men Ask for Jury Trial.
In their answer to the petition of the
Bucks Stove and Range Company to have
Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and
Frank Morrison of the American Fedora
ton of Labor punished for contempt on
the charge of violating the order of JUS
tice Gould enjoining them from continuing
the boycott against the stove company by
publishing the name of that company in
the weldon t-patroniZe" list, which was
filed today in the Supreme Court of the
District of Columbia. the three defend
ants named asked that the issues be tried
before jury and not by Justice Gould
alone.
Most of the specifications of the petition
relate to publications in the American
Federationist, of which Gompers is editor,
and to public addresses made by him.
His response is of much greater length
than those of Mitchell and Morrison, both
Of whom profess ignorance as to the ma
jority of the utterances quoted.
For the most part Gompers admits the
corrections of the questions from his
speeches, interviews and editorial He de-
clareS that none of them was intended
to be in contempt of any decree of the
court.
Criticisms Defended.
The principal charge made in the petit
ton refers to criticisms of the injunction
which were made by Gompers in an edi-
torial published in the Federationist for
February, 1908. in which he characterized
the Injunction as an invasion of the lib
erty of the press and of the right of free
speech. and furth her said it would be i'm
possible to comply with all its terms.
Replying to this charge, Gompers,
Mitchell and Morrison united in saying:
answering the seventeenth paragraph
of the petition, this respondent says that
the editorial therein referred 10 is only to
be understood properly by being read in
its entirety, and he accordingly. for the
full contents thereof, refers to the files of
this court.
He denies that said editorial constituted
in any respect the contempt of court, or
tina. it was in any degree disrespectful of
the action of the court. On the contrary,
he says it contained only such fair and
temperate criticism as he had right to
indulge in as a citizen of the conduct of
one of the officers of the government, and
that the order and decree herein passed
were never properly intended to take away
from him his rights as an American citi-
zen, but only intended to prevent the
doing of acts, styled unlawful had pur-
suant to a supposed unlawful conspiracy
to injure.
THAT there never existed any con-
spiracy. combination. agreement or under
starding which resulted in any degree in
bringing about the publication of said edi-
torial: but that the passing of the decree
raised new issue, to wit, whether the
court had acted within or without the
limits prescribed by justice. That this
issue. which was one only incidentally re-
1ating to the pending case, but which
might have been raised by a case between
entirely different parties quite as well,
was the only issue discussed by him.
From his viewpoint. he believed the
action of the court to be erroneous: not
because the Bucks Stove and Range Com
pany or the American Federation of Labor
were the parties involved. but because, as
he believes, the underlying principle of
the decision was TO be found in an erro-
neous conception of right. That in said
Bucks Stove and Range Company's name
was merely an incident and not the object
of the debate.
No Motive of Contempt.
Further. answering said paragraph
this respondent says he admits the pub
LEGATION of the statement referred to as
being on pages ia and rs of the Feb
ruary, 1905, number of the American
Federationist; that he believes the state
ment of law therein contained to be cor
rect; that the same was published in good
faith and for the better understanding of
the officials of the American Federation
of Labor, who were entitled TO know, as
definitely as they might, TO what extent
they were affected by the order of court
passed in the District OF Columbia. that
he denies the imputation of motives in
dulged in by the petitioner with relation
thereto"
Gompers grows facetious in replying to
ten years ago. saying that, not being a
known of the decision in this case. and
urging that no expression used by him at
that time can be construed as in con-
tempt of so recent a decision as the one
involved.
Responding to a specific charge against
himself. Mitchell said:
He admits that on January %, 1908, he
was in the chair presiding officer of
the nineteenth annual convention of the
United Mine Workers OF America, held
at Minneapolis. MINI. BY reference to
the minutes of the proceedings had at
that time he finds that the resolution re-
ferred TO in said paragraph was submit
ted and carried by the convention.
THAT having no recollection whatever
as TO the matter he can neither admit nor