The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1908-09-09
ASK FOR A JURY.
Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison
File Their Answers
TO the Petition of the Buck
Stove and Range Co.
ADMITS HE SAID 1T.
Federation Head Makes No De-
NAL of Language
But Says There Was No Inten.
tiOnal Disrespect.

Washington, Sept. 9.-In their
answers to the petition of the Buck
Stove and Range company to have
Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and
Frank Morrison of the American Fed
Grafton of Labor. punished for con-
tempt on the charge of violating the
order of Justice Gould, enjoining them
from continuing the boycott against
the stove company and publishing the
name of that company in the eve
don't patronize" list, which was f7led
today in the supreme court Of the Dis
trIct Of Columbia. the three defend-
ants named asked that the issues be
tried before a jury and not by Justice
Gould alone.
Most of the specifications of the
petition relative to publications in thG
american Federationist, the official
organ of the federation of which Mr.
Gompers is editor and to public adx
dresses made by him and his response.
is of much greater length than those
OF MeSSrS. Mitchell and Morrison, both
or whom profess ignorance as to the
majority of the utteranceS quoted. For
the most part Mr. Gompers admits the
correctness of the quotations from
his speeches, interviews and editorials
but he declares that none of them
was intended to be in contempt of any
decree of the court.
The principal charge made in the,
petition refers to criticisms of the inc
functions which were made by Mr..
Gompers in an editorial published iH
the Federationist, February 1908 iE
which he characterized the Injunction
as an invasion of the liberty of the
press and of the right of free speech
and further said it would be impos-
sible to comply with all its terms Re-
plying to this charge, Mr.. Gompers,
Mr.. Mitchell and Mr.. Morrison united
in saying:
Answering the seventeenth para
graph of the petition, this respondent
says that the editorial therein re-
ferred to is only to be understood
properly in its entirety and he accord
ingly for the full contents thereof,
refers to the files of this court. He
denies that said editorial constituted in
any respect contempt of the court or
that it was in any degree disrespect-
contrary he says 1T eeontain1d only
such fair and temperate criticisms as
he had a 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 citizen, but only intended to
prevent the doing of acts styled un-
lawful pursuant to a supposed un-
lawful conspiracy to injure. That
there never existed any conspiracy,
combination, agreement or under
standing which resulted in any degreR
in bringing about the publication on
said editorial but that the passing of
the decree raised a new issue to wit:
whether the court had acted with
in or without the limits prescribed by
JUSTICE; that this issue which was the
only one incidentally relating to the
pending case, but which might have
been raised by case between entirely
different parties quite as well, was the
only issue discussed by him.
Judge Gould decided to appoint an
examiner to take testimony and Will
liam Herbert Smith was designated to
perform the service. Thirty days was
given to each side for the purpose Of
taking testimony.