Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-11-27
LABOR APPEAL READY
Petition in Gompers Case to
Be Filed Monday.
POINTS MADE IN BRIEFS
Writ of Certiorari Prayed for on
Constitutional Grounds.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS
Justice Wright's Decision Held to
Be in Violation of Guaranteed
Rights-Appeal Not Opposed.

petition for writ of certiorari in the
Gompers case will be filed in the United
States Supreme Court next Monday by
Jackson II. Ralston. Frederick l.. Sid
dons and William E. Richardson. attorneys
for Gompers Mitchell and Morrison, and
Alton B. Parker Of counsel
The petition will ask for the issuance
Of a writ Of certiorari requiring the Court
OF Appeals of the District of Columbia TO
certify to the Supreme Court of the
United States for its revision and deter
| minaton the appeal taken by the petit
TONERS against the Bucks Stove and
Range Company
! The brief Of the petitioners sets forth
the successive steps of the litigation,
leading up to the action of Justice Wright
| of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia in adjudging Messrs Gompers,
| Mitchell and Morrison in contempt of
| court
Points in the Brief
The brief then goes on to say:
| Your petitioners respectfully represent
that Mr.. Justice Wright erred (as did the
Court of Appeals in its conf1rmatory de-
cree) In his findings and decree, in that
the same were based upon and enforced
provisions of the hereinbefore recited de-
| crees of MeSSrs. Justices Gould and CIa-
baugh. which were unconstitutional and
void, and cannot be made a basis of any
| application to have these petitioners ad-
judged in contempt. said DEGREES violating
the first article OF the amendments to the
Constitution of the United States as
| 'abridging freedom Of speech and of the
press follows:
| "(a) The said DEGREES prohibited these
petitioners absolutely from circulaJE
through the mails copies of the Fedora
n xIyhi inh flnd dod IN
inform the public that the Bucks Stove
and Range Company was unfair That
this inhibition was made irrespective OF
whether not such publications or cir
culars were made for an illegal purpose
or to carrv out any illegal combination
! '(b) That the said DEGREES prohibited
the petitioners from making representa-
ttioiis even to one Of their two million as
sociate defendants which tended to injure
and interfere with the business Of the
Bucks Stove and Range Company. and
the decree convicting them found them
guilty Of making such representations ir-
respective of whether the same were
made pursuant to any combination to IN
jure or interfere with the business of the
Bucks Stove and Range Company or
| were made to their associate defendants
| or otherwise.
"(c) That said DEGREES of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia PEN
dente lite and final as above recited for
bade, and the findings and decree of MIR.
| Justice Wright. found the petitioners
guilty of, acts and language which would
| induce or tend to induce persons not to
purchase use buy, trade or deal in, or
| have in their possession. products of the
Bucks Stove and Range Company, and
| this irrespective of whether or not such
acts were had pursuant to any unlaw-
full conspiracy or whether they were had
In the privileged exercise of the conStitu-
| tional right of freedom of speech and Of
| the press. these petitioners denying that
| they committed any such act pursuant to.
| conspiracy
Freedom Of Press and Speech.
"(d) That the petitioners were by the
said order pendente lite and final order,
restrained from circulating and by Mr..
Justice Wright found guilty of having
| circulated printed matter which referred
| to the Bucks Stove and Range Company,
| its business and products and this with
| out limitation to whether such publi-
cation was done for the purpose of carry
ing out the so-called boycott. was
done for any innocent and proper reason
| whatsoever thereby interfering with the
| freedom of the press and. of speech.
| ''te) That the order pendente lite and
| the final decree prohibited the petitioners
Wright found guilty of. alleging that the
| said injunction was an invasion of the
liberty of the press and of free speech.
and of declaring that the DEGREES could
! to buy the Bucks stoves and ranges
such findings of Mr.. Justice Wright being
! reached irrespective of whether or not
the publication was done pursuant to an
| illegal conspiracy. and therefore the said
| action in granting said DEGREES, and by
| Mr. Justice Wright in holding the petit
| TONERS in contempt. as we'll as the said
several acts hereinbefore enumerated in
| this particular paragraph. were in viola
tion of the constitutional right of free
speech and of free press.
% That the order pendente lite and
the final decree prohibited the petitioners
| from. and they were by Mr. Justice
! Wright found guilty of. doing acts which
were not only constitutionally guaranteed
as hereinbefore maintained. but also acts
which. before the adoption Of the consti-
tuttonal amendments and ever since. IL
was and has been beyond the established
jurisdiction of courts to interfere with or
prevent and such interference or preven-
ton being also contrary to the provisions
Of the Maryland constitution in force in
this District when it was formed.
Decree "Illegal and Void"
"(g) That the said decree of MIR. Justice
Wright was void in that it condemned
the petitioners for acts committed before
the injunction became effective, for acts
constitutionally permissible occurring
while the injunction was in effect also
including acts occurring long after the
date upon which the petition to require
these petitioners to show cause why they
should not be adjudged in contempt was
filed, and that upon this mixture Of
improper elements one punishment was
meted out to each of the petitioners, and,
in this respect. well In the respects
hereinbefore enumerated, the decree of
Mr.. Justice Wright and the proce edings
affirming the same directing 1t to be car
ried out were Illegal ana void, and beyond
the Jurisdiction of the courts indulging in
them
'th) That there was before Mr.. Justice
Wright. for his action solely. the petition
of the Bucks Stove and Range Company
that Samuel GOmpers, Frank Morrison
and John Mitchell be required to show
cause why a writ of attachment should
not issue against them. and why they
should not be adjudged by the court to
be in contempt of its order and its decree
and be punished for the same, and for
such other and further relief as the ma
ture of the case might require. and there
was not any petition specially praying
i.haa In contep,nf nor was there before