Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1909-11-02
RULING AGAIN ADVERSE TO DE.
PENDANTS GoMPERs, MoRRl.
SON AND MITCHELL.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SUPREME COURT UPHELD
Decision Holds That If These Men Defy
Courts Mandates, They Would Be
Justified in Individual Defiance, Gov
ernment Would Become Powerless
and Society Reduced to Anarchy.

dSHlTSlon, NOV. Zine QlStrlct
count of appeals today affirmed the
decree of the supreme court of the Dis
trict of Columbia adjudging President
Samuel Gompers, Secretary Frank
Morrison and Vice President John Nit
chell, of the American Federation of
Labor, guilty of contempt of court, in
the Buck Stove and Range Company
case. Chief Justice Sheppard dssented
from the opinion of the court, on con-
stltutional grounds.
Would Mean Anarchy.
The court held that the fundamental
issue was whether the constitutional
agencies of the government should be
obeyed or defied. The mere fact that
the defendants were officers of organ
lied labor in America, said the court,
lent Importance to the cause and added
to the gravity of the situation, but it
should not be permitted to influence the
result. IF an organization of citizens,
however. large" the court held, may
disobey the mandates of court the
same reasoning would render them
subject to individual defiance. Both
are subject to the law and neither is
above It, If citizen, tho he may hon.
estly believe his rights have been in
vaded, may elect when and to what ex-
tent he will obey the mandates of a
court and the requirements of law. as
interpreted by the court instead of
pursuing an orderly course of appeal,
not only the courts but the government
itself would become powerless and So
ciety would be reduced to a state OF
anarchy"
Defendants offense.
The action of the supreme court of
the district of Columbia in sentencing
Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison to
twelve. nine, and six months imprison-
nent in Jail, respectively, was the re-
suit of the failure of these defendants
to obey the order of the court direct
gin them to desist from placing the
Bucks Stove and Range Company of st.
Louis, on their unfair list" in prose-
cution of their boycott against the cor
poration.
History of the Case.
The boycott placed by the federation
against the Buck Stove and Range
Company grew out of the fight made
by the metal polishers' union and sup
ported by the federation for an eight
instead of a nine hour day This was
resisted by the company and the Fed
erationist published the name of the
company under the caption, We Don't
Patronize" Proceedings against the
officers of the federation were begun
Aug. 19, 1907, by the company. An m
junction against the boycott was issued
by the supreme court of the District
of Columbia. The case went to the
court of appeals of the District of CO.
lumbia References to the company
continuing in Federationist, and in the
speeches and writings of defendants,
they We're cited for contempt. They
were found guilty and sentenced to inn
prsonment in the district Jail. but were
released on bonds. Last March the
court of appeals modified the district
supreme courts injunction decree by
adding to the injunction the words, "In
furtherance of said boycott" This
modification was looked upon by at
tnrneys for defendants as materially
affecting the proceedings for contempt
They claimed that had those words
appeared in the original injunction the
contempt proceedings never could have
been decided against them.
The labor leaders probably will at
tempt to appeal the case to the United
States supreme court, but in some
quarters there is doubt as to the r;5h:
of appeal.
A Dissenting Opinion.
Chief Justice Sheppard. in his dis
senting opinion. held the decree should
be reversed, because he was convinced
the lower court was without authority
to make the only order which the de-
PENDANTS could be said to have disobey-
ed. The chief justice says he is not
clearly convinced that this proceeding
must be regarded as criminal solely
and in consequence, that the evidence
on which conviction rests can be con-
sidered because not presented in the
bill of exceptions. reserved on the hear
ing" He also says he is confirmed in his
previous opinion that much of the in
junction order is null and void because
opposed to the constitutional provision
concerning freedom of speech and OF
the press.
"I concede," says Sheppard. that the
court had jurisdiction of the subjec
matter of the controversy and of the
parties. but I can not agree that the
decree was rendered in accordance with
ii,e power ot the Court & rc%er limit
ed by the express provision of the con.
stitution."
eoMPERs STILL DEFIANT.
- l-sI ~