The Boise citizen. (Boise, Idaho) 1906-1910, 1909-01-29
THE FREEDOM OF PRESS.
that is THE QUESTION INVOLVED in THE CASE
AGAINST LABOR LEADERS

OF the San Francisco Bar Written for and published in the s.
Francisco Star of January 2:
The decision of Judge Wright of the Supreme Court of II
District Of Columbia the Gompers contempt is the
reaching step yet taken undermine and destroy the freedom
speech and of the press guaranteed by the Federal Constitution
Primarily intended curb the growing power Of organized labo
destroy the labor but be limited thu
purpose # finally upheld it ultimately lead the genera
censorship Of seec and Of the press If court may by njuncto
otherwise determine advance what subjects may
discussed may may be said labor paper why
like abridge the freedom of all other publications
The fact that judges nearly all Of whom appointed through
huenc unrendy labor and Of sympathy with the labo
may deem nexpeden undesirable abrdge thu
freedom of other publications. the proposition tina
assumption Of power do any places the entire press
of country mercy irresponsible power great
arbitrary the Russian censorship be exercised will If the
enon the publication of any statement in THE Fedora
ZIONIST they certainly enon the publication of the
any other paper and if they enon publication
statement the discussion of subject their power extends
to all statements and to all subjects.
The truth falsiy Of the enoned statement is wholly
material and considered by the either granting
junction determining the guilt of the publisher when cited for
contempt OF The publication contrary the injunction
stues the crime though the may be- the Gompers
case, absolutely true.
The Constitution of the United States provides Congress
shall make law abidgng the freedom of speech of the
press but Judge Wright provision does not guarantee
the right of anybody print publish anything
inhibition upon the direct action OF Congress- Congress
free to create courts with abdge such freedom by wri
having the force OF statutory laws This
neither deserves needs discussion.
But says Judge Wright the defendants charged with having
consprd among themselves and with others publication
IN question: for the purpose OF nurng the property (e buness)
OF the Buck Stove Company and that the publication
Incidental overt in execution of the conspiracy the court had
right to enon although individual conspng with Others
might not be subject injunction This involves the absrtv
OF holding that an individual citizen may lawfully rghtfuy
publish article newspaper which unawu for sew
era persons having the object in view publish same
newspaper
What property Buck Stove Company were the defendants
seeking to nu by the enoned publications. business of course
And how were they attempting nure BY inducing
the members and friends Of organized labor withdraw patron
age from the company during its controversy unions But
the Buck Stove Company has property right patronage of its
customers II there property right patronage it be-
longs TO the customers and not to the company with which they
may at any time choose to deal and may be withdrawn by them at
VIII ener with or without reason What possible property prop
erV right OF the company be injured by requesting customer
10 transfer his patronage to anoer None Yet an Injunction
can be ISSUED IN such cases only prevent injury to property or
property rights OF the complainant
Another argument Of Judge Wright the enoined pub
aon was and was intended be interference with interstate
commerce. and therefore criminal act in execution Of the ~
eyed conspiracy How did could the publication Interfere with
ue' interstate commerce assuming, although deny that
st oe properly encned upon that grodf If every person
every State OF the Onion should direct result of the publication
euse to purchase any stove or other article n,amf ~ ~
DUCK stove company that fact would least interfere with
Interstate commerce The company would still be perfectly free 70
mp ne wares INTO every State the Union They might find no
ueaes IN any OF the States but that entirely beyond
~ scope q the interstate commerce laws beyond the ursdic
on OF tie Federal Government itself
se wright as further basis for his decision appeals to the
gher law OF necessity the arguments Of rans He contends
% " ue mluneons cannot be issued and enforced there is no
po'eeon 70 the citizen against false and belous pubca
ons injurious to his business OF course he does notfnd fiat
g published by the defendants was false or beous Il was
esly tre and its truth fasity legally material in tb
'enP proceeding it that the Buck Stove Conna
the "rnfa;r 1e+,,.
Labor and it that members Of the Ised
iuoze the company These enioined publications ~
iOpg winch they were found guilty contempt Of court
Injunction IS not and can be- remedy for libel q ld