The Paducah evening sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1906-1929, 1909-11-08

the allegations OF the BUCKS stove
and Range company, although the
charges we're untrue in many import
ant particulars.
ION account of the fundamental
issues of free press and free. speech.
which were involved in the original
injunction, we preferred TO stand
upon the unconsttutionality of the
Injunction rather than obscure this
great issue by going into the details
of the original trouble with the
Bucks Stove and Range company.
+. Judge Wrisht's prejudiced aud
misleading extracts from the original
ltestimony. and his ignoring of testi-
mony. also tended still further to be-
cloud the facts.
"The court of appeals said that the
only reason the publication of the
Bucks Stove and Range company
was enjoined from appearing on the
we Don't Patronize' list was because
they believed that a conspiracy to
boycott had been entered into and
that threats, intimidation and CO.
ercion had been used on innocent
third parties. On this wrong assump-
ton the modified injunction was
affirmed.
ut, was regrcttable that the court
should have been so in error as to
the facts of the boycott.
even II we had been guilty of un-
lawful conspiracy and coercion and
| imidation-which we were not
surely there should be some more
adequate punishment than by a pro-
cess of injunction. In fact, existing
laws do provide greater punishments
Tor these offenees, and we respect
fully submit that if we are guilty of
them we should be tried by the due
process OF law before a jury of our
peers and If focnd guilty punished as
the law provides, rather than be sub
jected to the caprice of a judge who
solely determines the sufiiciencY OF
the charge. the guilt of the defend
ant and who imposes punishment as
his within may prompt.
at was to the court of appeals of
the District OF Columbia. the person
mel of which has undergone no
change since the rendering of the
opinion modifying the injunction.
that the appeal in the contempt pro-
ceedlngs was made. The argument
upon the appeal against the SEN
fences imposed by Judge Wright was
made April 1920. 1909. Hon. Alton
b. Parker and Hon. j. II. Ralston
making the arguments in labor's be-
half.
ct may be interesting to know
that Justice Wright assessed Com
pers. Mitchell and Morrison in the
sum of 1900 as costs of the injunc-
ton proceedings against them. From
this decree an appeal IL also pending.
81 repeat and emphasize this fact,
that the doctrine that the citizen
must yield obedience to every order
OF the court, Notwithstanding that
order transoends inherent, natural.
human rights guaranteed by the con-
stitution OF our country, is vicious
and repugnsnt to liberty and human
freedom, and that IL is the duty the
imperative duty. TO protest.
1--WE must have the right to freely
speak and print for the wrongs that
need resistance and the cause that
needs assistance.
"Out Of this attempt to seal the
lips of the men OF labor | believe will
come good.
1--WE know that the people of our
country and the labor movement will
be found united in patriotic protest
against any cuItailment of the liber-
ties for which our forefathers strug-
gled in order that we might be free
Eve have come too far in the
march of human progress for any set
of influences to drive us back into
slavery.
81 see silver lining 20 the clouds
and bright star OF hope in the
heavens. and ! see ultimately the
spirit of humanity, justice and the
brotherhood of man obtaining in the
minds and hearts of the people OF the |
country. Like jefferson, ! am will |
ing to trust the people, and have a
certainty of their final triumph.
observation-disclosures LAWN
junction.
Cngress has thus far failed to pass /
any amendment to the Sherman anti
trust law relieving labor organiza-
tons from the operations of that law /
as Interpreted by the supreme court |
of the United States in the suit of |
Loewe & company, hat manufactur-
crs of Danbury, Conn, against the |
United Hatters of North America for /
damages claimed by Loewe /
that is S240. 900. Though il is
true that since this decision has been
rendered but few suits have been in
against organized labor un-
der the provisions OF the new inter
probation placed upon the law, yet Il
Is also true that every labor organi-
zation and every individual member
Of the organization are menaced by
the present status.
Now any action taken by our vol
1ntary organizations of labor for the
and the furtherance of the