Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1909-01-06
WERE THE LABOR LEADERS LIZ
eALLY SENTENCED TO SERVE
TERMS IN PRISON?

TERMS I'm sPhiSONI
1t is doubtful, exceedingly doubtful,
whether the question contained in the
headline can be answered in the af-
firmative.
In this and most all other civilized
countries several prerequisites are
ordinarily required before ny judge
has the power to deprive any person
Of life, liberty or property
In this. country there are no com
mon law crimes. No act is criminal
in this country, unless Congress or
some other body possessing legisla.
tive powers declares it SO by positive
enactment. No court has any right
to say any act is criminal until some
legislative BODY has by statute made
it so.
Then again it is provided by Article
3 Section 2, of the Constitution of
the United States that "The trial of
all crimes, except i'll cases of i'm
parchment, shall be by jury; and
such trials, shall be in the state
where the said crimes shall have
been committed" And every state
constitution contains provision sim
liar to the one quoted above. These
provisions jealousy safeguard the
right of every citizen to trial by
jury. In this country no person can
be legally sent to jail, as punishment
for crime, until convicted by a jury
OF some offense made positive and
certain by duly enacted statute.
1t is not claimed that the defen-
dants, Gompers, Mitchell and Morrl-
son committed any statutory offence.
They were not charged with the COM
mission of any crime, nor were they
given trial by jury. They were
simply ordered by the court not to
publish the Bucks Stove company In
an unfair list" and refused to obey
the order. The whole question turns
on whether the court had any legal
right to make the order.
If the courts have authority to or
dor the labor leaders to refrain from
publishing something that some judge
does not like, and to send them to
Jail when they refuse to obey, what
is there to curb this power or pre-
vent it from being extended to every
publisher in the country? II the
courts of this country can send men
TO Jail for publishing something which
is-neither libelous, nor violation OF
: +. b. 49,
any statute law, of what avail are
our boasted constitutional safeguards:
Wherein are American publishers
safer or freer than the subjects Of
the Gear of Russia?
We ask THIS question knowing full
Z. i
we'll that the power to punish for
contempt is q necessary power inner
ent in every court. While that Is
true, 1t does not follow by any means
that power to punish for contempt
extends to acts over which the court
has no right to make orders, and
especially is this so where such acts
are not committed in the presence
of the court.
Suppose that instead Of making the
order which he did, the Judge had
commanded these labor leaders to
NEE in their assembly hall on g
certain Sabbath morning and there
sing hymns to the tune of Yankee
Doodle; and, suppose that upon their
refusal to obey, he had ordered
them sent to prison. Would any one
contend that in such case the
power to commit for contempt of
court was at all applicable? 1t followe
we think, that the extraordinary
power of the courts in contempt
cases must be strictly confined to
necessary orders which are clearly
within the jurisdiction CT the court.
II there had been trial ard a
court or jury had rendered verdict
in ii or of the Bucks Save COM
pany for damages on account of the
sdefendants publishing their names
in an unfair list" then there might
have been something upon which to
legally base restraining order. But
as we understand the case, there was
nothing of this nature preliminary to
the issuance of the injunction against
the labor leaders. 1t seems to us
that the order was based upon an
unwarranted assumption, and that it
did not carry with it the power to
commit to prison for contempt.
ENORMOUS DEFICIT FOR CUR