The sun., 1909-01-04
the Mischief OF an Evil Preccden,

the Mischief OF an Evil Precedent.
With some hesitation Mr.. WILLIAM
j. BRYAN comes to the relief of SAMUEL
GoMPEBs and JOHN MITCHELL.
In an editorial in the Commoner he
suggests in substance that the decision
IN the Bucks Stove case justifies the
.clamor against preliminary injunctions
and emphasizes the demand for dis
abling legislation.
Nothing could be further from the
truth. No preliminary injunction was
granted until more than six months
after the suit was commenced, and then
only after full opportunity had been
given to the defendants to file their
answers and testify in person as
10 whether a preliminary injunction
should issue. Fully six months again
passed after the preliminary injuno tion
was entered before the contempt pro-
oeedin.s were begun last summer, and
the sentences were imposed by Judge
WRIGHT full year after the suit was
dommenced, and only after the testi-
pony of GoMPERs and MITCHELL had
been taken in their own exculpation
In all this the worst critics Of the courts
dDuld find no evidence Of indecent
hasts or summary action, and yet Mr.,
BRYAN, as always a demagogue, holds
up, the Bucks Stove case as a fragrant
example Of the abuse Of injunctions.
Mr.. BRYAN has wholly missed the
only real palliation for the conduct OF
QoMPBRs and MITCHELL. We refer TO
a fact which, although 1t could not
properly have been suggested to the
dourt in mitigation OF their sentences,
should yet be urged in the larger court
d public opinion in mitigation Of the
moral judgment which the American
People have passed upon these wilful
contemnors. In their defiance Of the
Court, they both had the precept and
example OF the highest official in our
Government, who above every other
public servant has sworn to execute
the laws of the United States.
No one can measure the evil which
theutterances and example Of THEo-
DoRE ROOSEVELT have exerted upon
that just respect for the authority Of
the courts upon which the cause Of law
and order must depend.
Mr.. RoosEvELTs attitude toward
this department Of the Government
has been one Of studied insolence and
deliberate insult. He commenced his
administration with the assumption
that any Judge whom he appointed
must forthwith reflect his views; and
when Justice HOLMES felt constrained
10 dissent from the majority of the
Supreme Court in their decision in the
Northern Securities case the President
struck his name from the list Of White
House guests and for time kept him
upon a social blacklist. Thus to boy
colt an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court OF the United States is unique
in American history. Since then on
more than one occasion Mr.. ROOSEVELT
has shown no restraint in his express
sions Of contempt for the decisions of
the Supreme Court whenever they failed
TO accord with his wishes.
The Presidents treatment Of the
other Federal Judges has been not less
indecent. When Judge HUMPHREY ven-
tarod. TO construe an act OF Congress
differently from Mr.. ROOSEVELT, the
President in a message TO Congress
denounced the decision as a mis-
carriage of justice, and added:
II can hardly believe that the ruling Of Judge
HtSpRpEI will DO followed by other Judges
such Interpretation OF the Law comes
mcasuraby near making the law farce"
Since then he has repeatedly, both
manual and special messages, assailed
the cotiT1s on the ground that in labor
controversies they have issued in
functions "to the grave injury Of the
rights OF laboring men," and "heed-
lossly and unjustly," and IN a manner
that has inflicted grave and OCCASION
ALLY h1eparable wrong upon those
epjoincd. He has justified the ex-
treme bitterness caused among large
bodies Of worthy citizens by the use
that has been repeatedly made Of the
power Of injunction IN labor disputes,
and he has recommended not only that
the writ Of injunction shall be restricted
but 'aIso that Judge, whose authority
has been mocked, shall be denied the