The Mathews journal. (Mathews C.H. [Court House]) 1903-1937, 1909-01-14
THURSDAY. JAN. IL. 1859.


have discussed the senteaea i'm.
posed upoR Gompers. Mitchell
and Morrison by Jsdge Weight el
the sspTsas coust Of the District
of Columbia. very tsv hare touch
ed the real Peint opea TO dispute.
There can BE 40 dosbt as TO the
courts having the power 10 pUai,h
5for coRtemps any one diaobsyiEg
an injunction. bat ths qUeetios is,
have courts the right TO issue ia
functions tsndisg to sappseSs free
dom of speech snd OF the press.
Even if the uaioa did tEv to
Sprevest it's meElSecs IRON buying
from the Buck Stove asd Range
Co. both by psistsd letters and
by verbal advice. the constitutions
ofthe United States guarantees
to every citizen freedom Of speech
land OF the press AID at tkesaHeti-
mepTovldes that 10 cases ~heFe in
dividuals or corporations are NAL
iciouslv attacked 10 sitheC way
that they Nav obtain redress by
suit foE damages. ThRs have the
great men who have from time
to time writtsa tAs pages Of our
laws. strives 90 S0ualize un&ssars
by providing Te1ree= for those un-
iustly.attscksd thFough speech or
print. WhSa such case comes
sup of course the court has the
power Of saying whether or not
the party has been injured and OF
fixing tho amosat Of damages 10
which he is entitled, ebut no where
in the pages of the constitution is
it even intimated that a court
Shall have Oay power Co iRteTfeFe
with the speeches OF writings OF
any citisen uatil actioe shall have
been brought against said citizen
by the party Injured.
Then ii the co1gt of the District
OF Columbia bad no right 20 issue
the iniuactioa, it csrssialy had, no
right to punish cay party Who dis-
obeyed il. The osly redress
which the Buck Co.. could or
should have in this casa would be
q civil suit for damages against
the parties responsible foE the
damages.
Again, lawyers are employed to
argue cases and judges IS decide
them according to the law and
evidence fairly asd isspaFtially.
should the lawyer during the
course Of his szguement see e: 60
denounce the parties on the op-
posite side he may do 90. but il IS
hardlysthe isdges- deity TO sc fer
either party in the case with such
sstinginE denuaciation ae ledge
Wright did. Spck astion natuT~
ally raises the qoestioa. Why ie
he so bitteEl The oRly plausible
answer would be either prejudice
or interest. and weee either Of
the two prescriptions correct the
judge should be hasrsd 80 far as
that case ie conceeRad.
Ths New York World asks the
following psxsiseut queetios in
regard 10 tkis ease:
Is ii not esuaBy ss easy to dis
cover the head a e corporation
as 10 discovsF tie bead Of labce
l.unionl' They are certainly az
easy 40 Discovers bss they DO not
seem 10 be az eesily psnishsd.
! Many Of the lesser oEcisls Of the
trusts have peeped fFom behind
! the bars for attractions Of the
laws, while the master mind. the
man whose fertile brain origina-
ted the scheme went nnscathed.
! It IS strange indeed then that the
4 head OF the labor anions were so
easily found and so sevcSsly pun
isheds Had the same measure
&been meeted sontso the heads OF
great trusts. probably we would
have been spared some Of tie
~ 1850 ......... 49,. A.. - .-. u d. 49,.