New-York tribune., 1909-01-04
CONTEMPT DECISION
IT'S SIGNIFICANCE SHOUN.
J. Il. Emery Tells Why Labor
Leaders Were Punished.

! In an article in the January issue Of American
, Industries James A. NEmery. general counsel for
the National Council for Industrial Defence sum-
marizes the significance of the recent decision in
! the Buck Stove and Range contempt proceedings
i in these words:
''Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison we're
not punished because their private Judgment dis
agreed with that expressed by the Court on the
| merits OF the original controversy; because
thew violated the Sherman antitrust law; nor for
libel: nor merely because they derided. insulted
| defed the Court, but because they wrenched from
the hands of the Buck Stove and Range Company
| the remedy which the Court had granted for its
| protection"
Mr. Emery. in discussing the contempt proceed
| ngs, says: THE conviction OF CTompers, Mitchell
and Morrison is by means the novel complex
| affair which critics and apologsts would
| make it appear. Messrs Gompers, Mitchell and
Morrison were punished because their private Iudg
/ ment disagreed with that expressed by the court
on the merits Of the original controversy. They
were not punished because they violated the Sher
man antitrust law they punished for
! libel. for any of the numerous offences which
many OF their defenders have asserted were passed
| upon by the court. Justice Wright found them
| guilty of refusing to obey a preliminary and final
| order made by Justice Gould and In encouraging.
approving and directing others under their control
| TO disObey and nullify that order They
punished merely because they derided. insrited
| and defed the court. but because they wrenrhcd
| from The hands OF the Buck Stove and Range
!
for its protection, and mockingly destroyed It in
| sight of all men
| In the words Of the Court. Before this injunc-
| ton was granted these announced that neither
| they the American Federation OF Labor would
obey it; since il issued they have refused to obey
It. and through the American Federation OF Labor
! disobedence has been successfully achieved and
the law has been made TO fail. not only has the
| law failed in IT'S effort to arrest widespread
wrong. but the injury has grown more destructive
since the Injunction than II before There Is
| studied defiant conflict preciptated In the light
OF open day between the DEGREES of the tribunal
ordained by the government of the federal Union
and Of the tribunals Of another federation, grown
up in this land one or the other must succumb.
'The merit of the original controversy between
the Buck Stove and Range Company and these
| defendants issue In the contempt pro
CeedlnSs. Those questions had been settled IN
favor OF the plaintiff, not sunmaIily and per
emptori!y but after hearing and argument cover
ing a long period OF time. and in which the de
PENDANTS represented by the sblest counsel
they chose 10 procure. For the intunctive order
which these men dsobeyed given only
| notice and elaborate hearing the very conditions
! under which the President has declared injInc-
tions should alone issue
| -Four months elapsed between the application
| for an injunction and tho granting or the pre-
| liminary order; three months before tie
| preliminary order made a final decree. Dur
ing all that time the defendants had every op-
portunity 20 present their cause. acquaint them
selves with the character Of the proceedings
become familiar with the meaning ~ the court
! Injunction. That they did Is evidenced by Mr..
| Gompers's frequent reference TO his complete
derstanding of the character OF the courts order
and its control o@ his actions. Finally Il IS
observed that in the trial Of the contempt the
! PENDANTS had that very great advantage. which
both the President and the President elect have
| frequently declared would insure the utmost fair
ness in such proceedings: that is. trial before g
Judge other than the issuing order. It
becomes obvious. then. that the defendants
toyed every advantage which the most respectable
authority has suggested for securing fair hear.
ing in proceeding for contempt.
Now, what were these defendants doing that
the court prohibited? To state It briefly IN the
language OF CHE day they had been enioined from
doing that which unlawful Under both the
common law and the Sherman anti-trIst act--the
| levyng, directing and leading OF p boycott. by
which two millions Of men under their geueraIship
! endeavoring TO destroy the interstate COM
merce and trade Of the Buck Stove and Range
! Company. persuading and coercing It's customers
scattered over many states. into breaches ~ con-
| tract and in turn attacking and destroying the
| business and commerce Of these customers and
| their customers customers far their power
| could reach this 10 continue until the Buck
| Stove and Range Company submitted to the indus
! trial dictation OF the American Federation OF
| Labor and such OF its subordinate unions as were
! in the employ OF that corporation The evidence
| to support this terrible accusation was largely
supplied by the defiant and boastful admissions Of
| the defendants
| had iea
! condemned for centuries by the common law and
| in the case Of Loewe Lawlor, the celebrated
| Danbury hatters case, the Supreme Court of tho
| United States had applied the Sherman antitrust
| act to just such combination. This case was the
| came save that stoves boycotted instead Of
hats Against COnspiraces OF the same character
thirty states have provided in their criminal codes
! The courts have been unanimous In thci? conden-
| nation The Anthracite Coal Strike Commission
composed OF representatives OF all classes uttered
| against them the bitterest criticism the President
| and President-eect of the United States declared
| against them in terms of uncomprOmisng hostility
| Against such a combination, rejected and con-
| demned by such authority. Justice Gould issued a
decree to protect the plaintiffs order these
! defendants not merely declared they would disobev
and did violate, but encOuTa ging emulation by ex-
| ample, urged, commanded and even Coerced,
through the machinery Of their gigantic organza-
| fant and destructive disobedience
| They used their numerous publications 20 further
the conspiracy they had been forbidden to execute
and under the guise of editorial discussion pro-
fanely abused the court and spurred thousands un-
der their control not merely to the commission Of
| this particular contempt but as was IN their
! power created permanent disrespect all sim
| liar orders OF the courts.