The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1909-11-12
Says Federation Off,
GERS Were Within
Their Rights in the
Buck Stove and
Range Case.

In his dissenting opinion Chief JUS
tice Shepard said, in part:
Convinced that the court was with
out authority to make the only order
which the defendants, Gompers, Mitchell
and Morrison, can be said to have dis
obeyed, | can have no other opinion
than that the decree should be reversed.
"As regards the conclusion that this
proceeding must be regarded as criminal
solely and in consequence that the evi-
dence on which the conviction rests can
be considered because not presented in
bill of exceptions reserved on the
hearing. | will content myself with say
ing that | am not clearly convinced
that it must be so regarded. The com
plant was made by the complainant
on whose behalf the injunction had
been granted and for its own redress.
No fine was imposed on behalf of the
United States. The relief sought in
the original bill was not pecuniary. The
punishment by Imprisonment in dis
obedience of the writ was the only way
in which the relief could be secured.
"The order was announced December
Il, 1907; entered December Is, 1907;
but no bond was given until December
%, 1907 The specific charge is that
after the granting of the order, and
before the giving of the bond, the re
spondents, Gompers and Morrison,
hastened to deposit in the mails the al
ready printed number of the January
Federationist, which contained the pub
lication of the complainant's name in
the unfair list 1t is not charged that
any subsequent issue of the journal con
tanned similar publication. Same gen
eral allegations respecting the circula-
ton of the January number of the Fed
erationst are too vague to form the
foundation for criminal charge and con-
viction.
"The gist of the charge is this rush
ing of the journal in the mails between
December II and %. The decree con
vieting the respondents cannot be sup
ported on this charge, because the order
for the injunction did not become opera
tive and effective before compliance
with the precedest condition"
Contended for Free Speech.
- lo SnaaabaS I11oHp bu
Gompers and which We're referred to
by Justice Wright, in imposing SEN
tence, the chief justice said;
"The language used was in bad taste
under all circumstances, yet seems to
have been directed to the assertion of
the right of free speech and free publ
cation for which the respondents were
then and are now contending. There
is another and stronger reason for my
dissent as far as the defendants Nor
rison and Gompers are involved. The
specific acts charged against them re-
late wholly to declarations and publca-
tions which violate the preliminary in
junction as issued. l have heretofore
expressed the opinion that much of the
Injunction order was null and void be
cause opposed to the constitutional pro
vision concerning the freedom of speech
and of the press.
Subsequent reflection has confirmed
this view. | can see that the court
had jurisdiction of the subject matter
of the controversy and of the parties,
but | cannot agree that the decree was
rendered in accordance with the power
of the court-a power limited by eX-
press provision of the Constitution is
merely erroneous and not absolutely
void"