The Morning examiner. [volume] (Ogden, Utah) 1904-1910, 1909-04-11

Morrison have been cdiudGed guilty
OF contempt because they have treated
this part of the courts mandate as
void because unconstitutional. Tne
Injunction was obeyed in the partcu-
, l0r command to omit ;hiS firms name
! from the I'VE Don't PatroniZe List,
! but the American FcderationlstS ana
these gentlemen continued TO discuss
The propriety of the Injunction. Partly
because the case became "a cause
celebro" such discussion OF the In
| junction became more effective than
I'VE Don't Patronize List" itself In
enforcing the boycott, and the court
has held that the gentlemen were In
contempt because the attention of the
court TO shield this firms business
by injunction, against injury by pub
licity, had been rendered nugatory by
them: while, on the other hand, II
must be recognized that tho action oil
the court itself In enjolnlng publicity
has resulted in publishing the fact
OF the boycott more widely than
ever
IT was argued as contempt OF court
for instance, that the injunction itself
was printed in the American Fedora
ZIONIST Every other paper and masa'
zine in the land could print the In
junction as n matter of news. but.
when the American Federationist
printed it, it became contempt OF
court Furthermore, Mr.. Gompcrs
was held in contempt because he dis
cussed the case. or for the manner in
which he discussed the case, in the
political campaign, in 4 perfect leGitI-
mate effort 10 bring about In an order
" way, a change in the policy OF the
country in respect OF such questions.
The determination of the legal
questions at issue can safely be left
to the Supreme Court of the United
States: but 1t Is legitimate to call at
tontion TO two aspects OF the case
which cannot fail to impress n lay
man Every other person in the Unit
cd States, except the persons affected
by this injunction, is left free to do
what those defendants are forbidden
10 do, that Is. discuss In the press
and on the platform all the aspects of
this case despite the publicity there
by given TO the boycott OF course,
the Injunction might be extended to
cover others, In case of need But
what would be the effect of the in.
junction If Ii were made universal?
If this procedure be a proper rem
edy at all, why may II not be applied
to everybody, and If it were to be so
applied. would there not be at least
one subject in the United States as
TO which free press and free speech
would not exist?
Secondly, In this aspect OF the case
the Injunction was issued to prevent
the publicity OF the boycott, and it has
increased the publicity OF the boycott
a thousandfold. AS a preventive of
publicity. therefore, the injunctions
seems to be 4 failure entirely lrrcS-
pectiye of any violation of 1t by the
defendants If boycotting by publlca-
tion Is illegal. why not enforce the
law against it in the usual way? If
IT is a crime why Is not somebody In.
dicted. tried and convicted? If It is
not n crime. why not sue for thrcefold
damages, as has been done in the hat
ter's case under the Sherman Anti
Trust Act? But what ground is there
for resortlns in such Il controversy
10 the exceptional process Of an In
junction against publicity which can
only be made effective by forbidding
certain men TO do what every other
man In the country is left free to do at
his pleasure-that Is. discuss the ac-