Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1909-01-06
CONTEMPT OF COURT.

The effect of the judgment in the
contempt proceedings against Mr..
Gompers, Mr.. Mitchell, and Mr..
Morrison cannot fail to be wide and
deep. Its spectacular features will
strike the popular imagination. The
prominence and popularity of the men
condemned, the severity of the punish
ment melted out, and the violent
rhetoric of the Justices opinion all
will serve to heighten public opinion
and involve the interest of all classes
throughout the country. Nothing
could better serve the ends of Mr..
Gompers and his associates than this.
for in such circumstances the real is
sue of this proceeding is likely to be
overshadowed by the questions which
preceded and which underlie it.
1t is important, therefore, that this
issue be clearly defined in the public
mind. 1t may be advantageous from
the standpoint of the trade unionist
propaganda that it be retired In favor
of the larger issue of free speech and
free press, of the right invovled in
the carrying on of business and inter
ference Herewith, and of the scope Of
the injunction process. But however
important these questions are, and
however desirable it is that they be
wisely answered, the fact remains
that they have nothing to do with
Judge Wright's Judgment and should
not affect public opinion in this case.
There is only one issue involved in
this Judgment. 1t is this: An in
junction was issued by court. The
alternatives open to the defendants
were to obey it and to appeal from it
or to disobey it. AS matter of fact
they announced that they would dis
obey it, they lid disobey it, and they
appealed from it.
That appeal is now pending. 1t
raises all the questions Of right to
which we have referred. If these
questions are decided by the court of
last resort against the defendants.
still another course lies open to them
the legislative.
rhe question before Judge Wright
remains. 1t is question of grave
Importance. When court has
rendered its opinion of the law and
that decision is renewable in due
course by the orderly processes of our
machinery of justice, shall the citizen
be encouraged and justified in the
expression of his disagreement with
the court by disobedience of its de-
cree?
There can be but one answer to this
question in America. 1t is true our
courts are intolerably slow. 1t is
true that our substantive law halts in
many ways behind the conscience of
the times. It is true patience is
difficult for men who believe they are
fighting against oppression. Never
theless, order, upon which the pro-
gress of civilization and the attain
ment of justice among men vitality
depend, often demands of the citizen
patience and even the enduring of in
Justice for a time. To condone
deliberate disobedience of the solemn
order of court would be to set up
every mans private Judgment against
that of the tribunal we have by our
own will set up to deliver Judgment.
1t may be that upon appeal the in
junction disobeyed will be held er-
roneous. Yet the method of ascertain
ing that error through disobedience of
the injunction is to be condemned.
And condemnation of this method
should remain even tn ough Mr..
G ompers and his associates eventually
are purged of legal contempt by the
finding of higher courts. Chicago
Tribune.