The Columbus journal., 1909-01-06

DWDE - ~ ssasivsd y 70 Jan. I. M
lsh0 - ~ - q. VIA pagDsat
= - - -. 49, anGvsu . Q sossivG,
vanbodaosasssssdlilGas.
laDO00IINuANueB-nnpuslhas suhsalb.
lh1llD0D 1s111Dd h lse1R - dissoaEi1aa.
- - x9ulk eol1iaasd 19 anoGAse ysR -
Re - "a az - sEyassd - sAeaA
Dssu1ss1y1sl1bu - Aissoalinnek
O1XNnB n ADDRH0-Whaa es0ssihe .
GAanO6 0a11bess, sahssEihsDsA oaA y sso
oeOivSS1tes ~ - vll - tAsRnsv sdasssa
JUDGE WRICHT'S DECISION.
No decision in recent years, either
from . high or Low. court, ha created
such warm discussion - the one hand
ID down By Judge Wright, the WISH
ingtoa jurist in the contempt case
agninst Samuel Gompe3, president Of
Tie American Federation of Labor,
md his co-workers. It u to be
lamented that trial Of the case was
1nfortunately before this particular
judge. Had the words of his decision
been more fitly chosen, one-half the
fhror created would have been avoided.
Il i not at I'll necessary for . judge
q he bench to stoop to personal
abuse Of . defendent before the bar of
Q court, IN order to render . forceable
judicial decision. The American peo-
PIE have . moral right to criticise
judicial abuse; that in rendering .
jsdsneat against any person accused
Il violation of law-even . criminal
statute- it lily becomes the man who
vean the judicial ermine to 90 far
ovsrstsp the dignity of his high posi-
ton that he practically deals in per.
sonalities. Had the language of his
decision been more temperate, the
feelings of our citizenship would have
been Len offended and comments q to
the martyrdom of the defendants
hard N labor circles only.
Yet there i another side that every
American citizen must stand up and
take notice Of: His individual rights
- vouchsafed BY the constitution. 1t
vas tho Englihman, Montague, in his
work On individual Liberty" who
stated, @the individual constitutes
society, society the state. and all Law is
but . substitute for selfhelp." Again,
Ne are informed by the Law chancellor
Of Columbia university, that our indi-
vidual liberty was created by the
American Consultation. These units
Of society, which constitute the state,
were the makers of the constitution,
which, according to legislative judg-
ment, brought into existence the fed
esal Statute under which the three
lebor defendants were tried and con-
dlanned. This i . representative gov
srn~ent, and the people themselves
are responsible for the contempt
statute which the three defendants
denied - constitutional, and in pursu-
anoe Of that denial, after they had been
enjoined BY court Of competent juris-
diction created and existing under and
By virtue Of the constitution itself,
assumed the individual liberty of deny
ing the correctness rendered in the
injunction proceedings, and, - the
testimony seems to show, this injunc-
ton was By them violated with impu-
nifty, and in turn the court passed SEN
tenoe Of punishment.
These defendants each determined
on IN individual Interpretation for
thenselves, and their Interpretation
prompted . violation of . court order
judicially determined. To quote . j
recent writer, The American consti.
tuition WAS born and brought up in the |
midi Of IN environment and heridity
which taught that the validity of .
statate must be determined BY the
courts Of justice" L. this doctrine
correct Hso, what right has IN indi-
vidnal to determine . constitutional
question for himself, more especially
vAss . court has recognized it,
validityi
No writer On constitutional ques-
tioos has advanced the doctrine that
the Constitution, either BY words or |
inplioation, authorizes the individual
citisen 10 assume any such liberty; |
ut, aocording to the acts Of Gompen |
and lie othr defendants, mot only do |
they anune the liberty, but hey turn |
that liberty into license, and then |
psorels themselves behind the '.free
upescA" clause Of th1 time honored
document and refer to . court decision |
- . siodssmade-lsw." Again, quot