The Washington herald., 1911-05-16
LABOR LEADERS
STILL FACE COURT
Continued from Page One.

punish whatever contempt 1t may have
been found had been committed.
Involving as it did the circumstances
of the disobedience Of an injunction with
the suit of the concern which was pray
ing for relief from its own alleged griev-
ances had the effect of remanding the
whole case, the court holding that crim-3
inal sentences had been imposed in a civil
case.
Charge of Contempt.
Inasmuch as the suit of the Bucks
Stove and Range Company has been vir-
tually settled out Of court. the only aft
ermath of the whole proceeding that may
possibly yet be had will be the direct
charge of contempt, and its settlement,
brought against Gompers. Mitchell. and
Morrison in the District Supreme Court,
privilege which the opinion Of Justice
Lamar directly reserved to 1t in its clos
ing words:
The criminal sentences imposed in
the civil case. therefore, should be set
aside. The judgments of the Court Of
Appeals and the Supreme Court of the
District are reversed and the case re-
manded with direction that the contempt
proceedings instituted by the Bucks Stove
and Range Company be dismissed. but
without prejudice to the power and the
right Of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia to punish by a proper
proceeding, contempt, II any, committed
against it,.
Could Have Been Fined.
The court held that Messrs. Gompers.
Mitchell. and Morrison had been placed
under an order of punishment whereby
the Bucks Stove and Range Company,
under whose auspices the suit was
brought, took nothing. The alleged con-
tempt. the court held. did not consist in
the defendants refusing to do any affirm
ative act required, but rather in doing
what had, ,been prohibited. The only pos
sible remedial relief for such disobedi-
ence would have been to impose a fine
for the satisfaction of the complainant,
measured in some degree by the pecuni-
airy injury caused by the act of dis
obedience.
war. which involved the stove COM
pany at ST. Louis and the American
Federation of Labor: formed the begin
ming of the imbroglio which resulted in
the charge of contempt. Charging that
the labor leaders were attempting to
unionize their shops against their will
and maintaining a damaging boycott, the
manufacturing concern prayed for and
received an injunction against the feder-
alton, whereby its officials We're restrain
ed from carrying on certain features of
their boycott including the publication
of the expressions Unfair" and We
don't patronize.' as relating to the COM
pany. in the journal of the federation
published in Washington.
Local Officials Accused.
The labor officials were later accused
toll ,oI %la Tt,
while an appeal on that action was
pending in the Court Of Appeals of the
District. They were found guilty and
a scathins opinion was handed down BY
Judge Wright President Gompers was
sentenced to one year in Jail. Vice Presi-
dent Mitchell to nine months. and Secre-
tary Morrison to six months The viola
tions of the inJunctions. II was alleged.
consisted mainly in a continuation of
the published utterances against the
nonunion concern. Ihe case was taken !
On writ of certiorari to the Supreme
Court, where a notable hearing was held. |
with an imposing array of prominent
counsel on both sides. Alton B. Parker.
former candidate for President, appear |
ing as one of the labor leaders lawyers |
Despite the fact that the case was due
for remandment on the grounds above |
stated, Justice Lamar, in his opinion.
went at length into the many interesting
legal phases of boyCotts and injunctOns. |
After discussing at length the question
of what constitutes a boycott that may
be enjoined. he says:
"Whatever the requirements of the |
particular Jurisdiction, the strong cur
rent of authority is that the publication +!
and use of letters, circulars, and printed |
matter may constitute a means whereby !
a boycott is unlawfully continued, and |
their use for such purpose may amount |
TO a violation of the order of injunction |
Have Right to Unite.
The courts protective and restraining
powers extend to every device where |
property is irreparably damaged or COM |
merce is illegally restrained continues |
the opinion. ITO hold that the restraint
c. trade under the Sherman antitrust |
could be enjoined but that the means |
through which the restraint was accom- !
pished could not be enjoined, would be |
to render the law impotent Society it. |
self is an organization, and does not OBJ |
joct to organizations for social, religious, |
business, and all legal purposes
The law, therefore, recognizes the !
tight of working men to unite and to |
invite others to join their ranks, thereby |
making available restraint, influence, and |
power that come from such associa ton. |
BY virtue of this right, powerful labor |
unions have been organized. But the |
very fact that ii is lawful to form these |
bodies, with multitudes Of members |
means that they have thereby acquired |
a vast power, in the presence of which |
the individual may be helpless
THE power, when unlawfully used |
against one. cannot be met. except by his !
to terms which involve the sacrifice of |
rights protected by the Constitution; or !
by standing on such rights and appealing |
to the preventive powers of a court of |
equity. When such an appeal is made |
It is the duty Of government to protect |
the one against the many as well as the |
many against the one.
Become Verbal Acts.
I'm the case of an unlawful conspiracy |
the agreement to act in concert when
the signal Is published, gives the words
unfair. we don't patronize,' or similar
expressions, a force not inhering in the
words themselves. and therefore exceed
ing any possible right of speech which
a single individual might have Under
such circumstances they become what
have been called verbal acts and as
such subject to injunction as the use of
any other force whereby property is
unlawfully damaged. When the facts in
such case warrant II, a court having
jurisdiction Of the parties and subject