Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-11-23
CASE is NOT CRIMINAL;
WILL HAVE TO BE TRIED
Opinion of Full Bench Delivered by
Justice Wright.
OFFENDING AGAINST PUBLIC
Contemnors Should Dismiss Idea,
Court Declares, That Their Con-
fict Is Merely With the
Judges of District Courts.

Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell
and Frank Morrison, the labor
leaders, must again stand trial in
the Supreme Court of the District
of Columbia on charges of con-
tempt arising out of the Bucks
Stove and Range case. Justice
Wright today handed down a de-
cision overruling the motion OF
the labor leaders for a dismissal
of the proceedings under the
statute of limitations.
Holding that the prosecution of a charge
of contempt of court is not a criminal
proceeding, and therefore not subject to
the bar of the statute of limitation, which
prevents prosecution of crimes on which
indictment or information is not filed
within three years of commission, Justice
Wright of the District Supreme Court to-
day decided that Samuel Gompers, John
Mitchell and Frank Morrison. labor lead
ers, must be tried on the contempt
charges which stand against them. The
court overruled the motion Of the labor
leaders to dismiss the proceedings for
want of replication to their plea Of the
bar of the limitation statute.
The sections of the motion to dismiss
in which they charge the court with 'un-
reasonsble delay" in presenting the
charges OF contempt are treated by the
court as frivolous and without merit.
Nor does the court say that these para
graphs, said Justice Wright, ARE not OF
an affrontive and ientsna60fe. WHICH
would justify and perhaps ought to re-
auirc the striking of them from the
uleS.
Offending Is Against Public.
"Of the fallacy that alleged con-
tennors are contesting with judges.
contemnors cannot too soon unload
their minds, continued the justice,
for if charges of contempt are true
the contest is against the supremacy
OF law. The duty and concern OF
judges is only that, for and in the
name of the people, the supremacy of
law shall be maintained"
Justice Wright also declined to ac-
cede entirely to the request of Com
pers and his associates that If the case
had TO be heard the testimony be taken
III open court and not by an examiner
IN the absence of the justice. The court
told the respondents that at first he
was inclined to view with favor that
plan when suggested by counsel for
the labor men. especially when it had
received the Endorsement of the COM
mittee of prosecutors. When 1t is con-
sidered that such a method of hearing
might result in the exclusion of evil
dence material to the questions in
VoIved, Justice Wright said. by the in
ability OF the courts process to reach
material witnesses. he felt obliged to
refuse the request. except as TO wit
nesses voluntarily presented by the
committee or the respondents before
the court for oral examination.
As 70 other witnesses the court decided,
whether on behalf of the committee or
III defense OF the charges, their testimony
must be taken according to the estab-
Iished method, and this because the ext
gences of the case require it, by deposit
tions before a commissioner or examiner,
reported and filed with the clerk of the
court.
Three Days to Agree.
Justice Wright allowed the respondents
three days in which to agree with the
committee of prosecutors upon the ap
pointment of a suitable person to act as
-s.-.- otxo he
The general term courtroom was crowd
ed today with members of the bar and
labor sympathizers when the six justices
OF the District Supreme Court, clothed in
their flowing gowns mounted the bench.
Justice Wright, who delivered the opin-
ion. carried the manuscript of the court $
decision. which filled twenty-seven pages
OF typewriting. Justice Wright took his
place in the center of the bench, usually
occupied by the chief justice Chief JUS
tice Clabaugh sat on his right and the
other Justices arranged themselves ac-
cording TO seniority
The charges of contempt verified by
affidavit, the court first pointed out were
filed June III. 1911. and set forth sixteen
different and distinct SPECIFICATIONS
charging the first act of contempt about
December "A, 1907, and the last in No
vember 1905 After citing section Io44
of the Revised Statutes of the United
States relating to the statute of Umita-
tions. Justice Wright called attention to
the fact that the specifications i'm con-
tempt name seven dates on which al
legged contempts We're committed within
the three years antedating the filing OF
the charges. As to these seven specifica
tions the court said the statute could
have no application, even were 1t con-
ceded to apply to contempts.
While this consideration alone" said
NrfU sSbn he
respondents To be meritless. the nature OF
the other specifications. is that moment
ous their character so serious and grave
seeming as they do to involve, If true 3
declared unfriendliness to social order 2
plain and purposed reputation of the
tribunals of the people, a defiance of the
supremacy of the law of the land and ar
open determination 10 be done with Law
for certain cases, that the court must
regard its duty as requiring II to exam.
inc and announce whether inquiry int
these charges is prohibited by the statute
1Continued on Third PageJ