United labor bulletin., 1909-12-17

and for its own redress. No fine was i'm
posed on behalf of the United States.
The relief sought in the original bill was
not pecuniary. The punishment by i'm
prisonment in disobedience of the writ
was the only way in which the relief
could be secured
"The order was announced December
II, 1907, and entered December is, 1907,
but no bond was given until December
%, 1907 The specific charge is that aft
er and before the giving of the bond the
respondents Gompers and Morrison has
tened to deposit in the mails the already
printed number of the January Fedora
zionist, which contained the publication
of the complainant's name in the unfair
list. 1t is not charged that any subse-
quent issue of the journal contained sim
liar publication. Some general allega-
tions respecting the circulation of the
January number of the Federationist are
too vague to form the foundation for
criminal charge and conviction.
"The gist of the charge is this rush
ing of the journal in the mails between
IL
victing the respondents cannot be sup
ported on this charge, because the order
for the injunction did not become oper-
ative and effective before compliance
with the precedent condition"
Referring to the speeches made by Mr..
tice Wright in imposing sentence, the
chief justice said
The language used was in bad taste
under the circumstances, yet seems to
have been directed to the assertion of
the right of free speech and free publica-
ton. for which the respondents were
then and are now contending. There is
another and stronger reason for my dis
sent as far as the defendants Morrison
and Gompers are involved. The specific
acts charged against them relate wholly
to declarations and publications which
violate the preliminary injunction as
issued
Il have heretofore expressed the .opin
ion that much of the injunction order
was null and void because opposed to
the constitutional provision concerning
the freedom of speech and of the press.
Subsequent reflection has confirmed this
view. l can see that the court had juris-
diction of the subject matter of the con-
troversy and of the parties, but l can
not agree that the decree was rendered
in accordance with the power of the
court A power limited by express pro-
vision of the constitution is merely err
roneous and not absolutely void"
In reference to the decision Mr.. Com
Iers said:
with all due respect to the authori-
ty of the court l cannot surrender con-
stitutionally guaranteed rights because
a Judge will issue an injunction invad-
ing and denying these rights. Chief JUS
tee Shepard's dissenting opinion is in
defense of the constitution and these in
ferent rights. Minority opinions of
courts in the past, when human rights
were invaded, have ultimately prevailed,
become a law of the land, and the gen.
e1ally accepted rule of life, and l have
an abiding faith that the rule in this
case will prove no exception.
IF | must go to Jail l shall have the
consciousness of the fact that other men
Rave been compelled to suffer in defense
OF justice and right in the cause of hui
manity and the maintenance that l
would prefer my liberty to going to jail.
| do not want to sever my relations with
my friends for year, and liberty is as
dear to me as to any man, but if the
sentence is carried out l shall bear it
with forttude. satisfied that 1 will have
nt thing to regret in my actions or ut
tcrances which might have been, in the
oI inion of some of the judges, but not
ALL a violation of the law."-Herald.