Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-10-20
Charge of Contempt Against
Gompers and Others.
ALL THE JUSTICES SITTING
Counsel for Defense Argues on Mo-
ton to Dismiss
IN DISTRICT SUPREME COURT
Attorney for the Prosecuting Com
mittee Also Heard-Court
Reserves It's Decision.

mittee Also Heard-Court
Reserves It's Decision.
Hearing was held today before Justice
wright and all his associates on the
bench of the District Supreme Court on
| the motion of Samuel Gompers, president
| Of the American Federation of Labor;
John Mitchell. its vice president, and
Frank Morrison, its secretary, to dismiss
the proceedings in alleged contempt
brought against the labor men by COM
mlttee or prosecutors. The motion was
based on the alleged failure by the COM
| mittee to file a replication to the answer
OF the labor leaders to the charges of
contempt presented by the committee
Should the court decline to dismiss the
proceedings. as requested, there is to be
| heard a motion on behalf of the com
mittee Of prosecutors to name an ex-
aminer to take proof of the charges of
contempt and testimony by the labor men
in defense of the allegations against
them.
Court Reserves Decision.
At the conclusion of the argument the
court declined to announce it's decision.
either on the motion to dismiss or the
motion to hear the case in open court.
Justice Wright stated that the court
would take under advisement all the
questions submitted and would render its
decision at q later date.
Justice Wright intimated his disposition
was to hear the case in open court if
hearing became necessary. He sug-
gested, however, that the granting OF
that request was not uncomplicated, as
a serious question might arise concern
| ing the compelling power Of the courts
process in a civil case to secure the at
tendance of witnesses residing outside
| the jurisdiction. If this is criminal
proceeding the court expressed his con-
viction that the process would bring in
| the witnesses.
He declared thorough consideration
should be given to the matter, so that
| the court might not be led to adopt a
| method Of trial which might leave the
court destitute of power to compel the
attendance of necessary witnesses.
That the contempt proceedings begun
by Justice Wright May 16 last-the day
after the United States Supreme Court
ceedings against the three labor men-are
based on an alleged disregard Of an in
junction order which terminated more
than three years before the order APP
pointing the committee of prosecutors
was the claim made today by Attorney
Jackson H. Ralston in opening his argu-
ment for the dismissal of the contempt
proceedings.
Contention of Defense.
Attorney Ralston urged that the whole
proceedings are baseless, since the order
signed by Justice Gould referring fur
Their proceedings in the contempt case to
Justice Wright May 10 related in terms
to the order Of injunction signed by
Justice Gould December IS. 1907. and
the committee of lawyers was directed
to prefer charges if this decree had been
violated. The final injunction, signed by
Chief Justice Clabaugh In the following
March, did not perpetuate the temporary
injunction. Mr. Ralston argued, but was
a separate and distinct order. The tenn
porary injunction, he claimed, had ex-
pired more than three. years before the
appointment of this committee to in
stitute contempt proceedings.
AS he progressed in his contention
that the statute Of limitations could
tempt Attorney Ralston met with a
cross fire of questions from both JUS
tice Wright and Justice Gould The
latter appeared more insistent. Mr..
Ralston said Justice Wright had ex-
pressed doubt on the question
Of whether contempt proceedings
are criminal cases. Justice Wright
interrupted, saying: Did you under
stand me to express doubt l have
no doubt that it is not criminal.
Otherwise 1t would be necessary to try
1T before a jury"
Mr. Ralston proceeded to read sew
eral decisions of the United States Su
preme Court in which that tribunal
had called contempt proceedings a
criminal charge, and a conviction
thereof a criminal conviction. In this
view. he urged, the federal statute of
limitations attaches to this case.
After holding Mr.. Ralston down to
the wording of the statute of limita-
tions. which reads indictment or in
formation" cases are to be subject to
the Limitation statute, Justice Gould
inquired: NOW Mr.. Ralston, don't you
mean to ask this court TO adopt the
analogy of the statute rather than the
terms of the statute?'
MIR. Ralston admitted that the re-
quest was by analogy. as the words
contempt prOceedingS'' are not lncor
pOrated in the statute.
Question of Delay.
Later, when Mr.. Ralston had taken up
the question of "laches'' on the part of
the court in waiting more than three
years to institute the present contempt
proceeding, Justice Gould inquired if
COuISel Sdy tiItl tiC ~ oSCco-
ing was pending in the United States Su-
preme Court the lower court should have
taken any action, and if not, how could
caches" be imputed to the court.
do you think lapse of time should
cause this court to lose respect for it's
ORDERS" inquired Justice Gould
Time cures everything responded the
attorney.
do you refer to the expression of the
poet, Time is a healing Cod said JUS
tice Gould
Continuing, Justice Gould impressed on
counsel that no private interest is now
concerned in the case, since the Buck
Stove and Range Company and the Fed
Grafton of Labor have settled their differ
enceS
IF there was a private right involved
and not the dignity and respect to be &C
corded order of this court said JUS
tice Could I'VE would not be sitting here
for one minute"
Represents Prosecuting Committee.
Attorney ]. J. Darlington for the COM
mittee of prosecutors, followed Mr.. Raj
stOn. Re commended, in answer to Mr..
Ralston's claim that the proceedings
were baseless by reason of certain al
legged Irregularities, that the pleading to
l 4 4. ---t.-- 49,