The Washington times., 1909-03-11

The case came up on appeal from the
decision Of Chief Justice CIabaugh, OF
the District Supreme Court, who about
one year ago made permanent the TEN
porary injunction sranted by Judge
Gould
The famous contempt case. a Grim
inal prosecution brought against Samuel
GOmpers. John Mitchell. and Frank
Morrison for alleged violations Of tie
Gould-Clabaugh injunction. which re-
suited in Jail sentences for the
labor leaders, is not directly a1ecrsa
by the action of the Court Of Appeals.
May Affect Other Case.
It is possible that since the Gould
Clabaugh Injunction has been found too
harsh by the Court of Appeals, the
labor leaders may be able, on appeal
from their jail sentences 70 obtain
reversal of a decision bastd rnon an IN
junction now found wantin..
The new injunction rsstraias Com
Pers, Mitchell. Morrison and others a,-
cused forever from assaiIInx, injurins.
printing the complainants' business or
product in the Weldon 't-Patronize- or
Unfair List of defendants in further
anee Of any boycott"
Throughout the whole decision tbc
prevailing opinion makes mention OF tba
furtherance OF boycott. so that - 5s
regarded as possible that the defendant
labor leaders, If they can show that
they are not furthering a bovcott. en-
still publish the name Of the stove com
pany in such lists
Modified Decree.
The modified decree reads as follows.
It Is adjudged, ordered and decrees
that the defendants Samuel Gompers.
Frank Morrison. John 2. Lennon.
James Duncan, John Mitchell. James
OConnen, Max Morris, Dennis A.
Hayes, Daniel J. Keefe. william, n
Huber Joseph F. Valentine, Rodney l..
Thixton, Clinton o. Buckingham. Her
man C Poppe, Arthur L. Williams.
Samuel R Cooper, and Edward +.
Hickman, individually. and as repre-
sentatves Of the American Federation
or Labor, their and each or their ser
wants ana confederateS. be and thec
hereoy are perpetualiy restrained and
ehJoined from conspirlng or combining
70 boycott the business or product OF
. complainant and from threatening or
declaring any boycott against the sad
business or product, and from abettine
aiding or assisting in any such boycott.
and from directly or indirectly threat
enings cOercing, or intimidatinS anv
person or persons whoSoever from bug-
ing, selling or otherwise dealing In
complainant's product, and from print
ing the complainant, its business or
product. in the We Don't Patronize.
or Unfair list Of defendants in fur
therance OF any boycott against COM
from printing the complainant. its busi-
ness or product in the We Don't Pa
tronize' or Unfair list Of defendant
I In furtherance, and from referring
either in print or otherwise TO complain
ant, its business or product as in ssid
We Don't Patronize' CT Unfair lIsJ
. in furtherance OF any such boycott
Justice Van Orsdel in cOnCurTinE 50 II
l concur fully in the conclusion reach
ed by my associate, Mr.. Justice RObD.
l do not desire 70 take isUe with the
reasoning employed by him n arriving
at that conclusion. Hence. what I may
In criticism Of, anything that appears
in the opinion
II is insisted that the decree Of the
court below depT:ves the defendants ef
the right Of freedom Of contract, OF free
speech, and OF z. free press. as gIaras
teed in the Federal Constitution. II tfrs
contention is well founded. it is clcsr
that court OF equity cannot be used
for such 2 purpose The equitable WIZ
OF injurCtiOn IS an agency placed in the
hands OF the court to protect rights and
restrain wrongs. where the IaW Il ToTU-
ediless; but II should never be used a.
an instrument Of oppression.
Not to Escape Law.
This great writ for the enforcement
OF equitable rights was not Intended