The Washington times., 1912-02-08
GOMPERS, DEFIANT,
MATCHES WITS IN
PARRY|NG QUERIES
Admitting Injunction Viola.
ton, Carries Defense
Against Darlington.
Continued from First Page.)

constitutional rights, as / recognized
them, and take the consequences" de-
clared President IiomperE in a slow, de-
liberate manner, In response to a query
az to whether he understood the in
junction decree prohibited him and his
colleagues from referring to the con-
troversy between the Bucks Stove and
Range Company and organized labor.
The witness repeatedly took the posi-
ton that he did not regard "a statement
question as a violation Of the iniunc.
tion. He sought to convey the idea
that IL IL were a violation 1t was like,
wise an invasion OF constitutional
rights and liberties. He insisted or
rect reply Of ''yeg' or no"
Numerous verbal clashes occurred be-
tween Attorney Darlington and the wit
ness. and the latter's counsel seldom
conduct his own defense in that par
ticuiar However, once he asked his
counsel to object when pressed regard
ing a labor dispute with a hat concern
in Connecticut, and the objection was
forthcoming from Judge Parker.
Complains of Fault Finding.
You're continually finding fault with
me-" snapped Mr.. Gompers once when
urged by the prosecutor to confine him.
self to the question and not elaborate
or amplify the answers. II can't place
myself In your position and you can't
place yourself in mine; and, necessarily,
there must be explanations of certain
answers"
Attorney Darlington cross-examined
President Gompers, who Is editor OF
the Federationist, the official organ OF
the American Federation OF Labor, In
regard to editorials appearing in the pc
ri al Ia TaWlw NWNW b lob
the readers were asked to bear IN
mind that there Is no law or court In
junction compelling anyone to buy q
Bucks stove or range" Pressed for an
expression in view of the injunction
prohibiting any mention Of the Bucks
Stove and Range Company's dispute
with organized labor, President Comp
ers said:
IAN Injunction is not mandamus
and many OF the laymen do not under
stand the difference. Anyway, IL was
q statement OF fact, not intended to aid
assist, or further any boycott"
DO you mean to tell this court y,t T2I
think they we're compelled to buy A
Bucks stove or range under that court
decree?" demanded Attorney Darling
| ton.
Question of Statements.
Mr.. Gompers discIaimed having any
such idea in its general sense. and re-
iterated that II was a statement Of
fact" and essential to a historical
| presentation of the status Of the figh
organized labor was making for free
| dom OF speech and other principles.
Asked about the circulation of tn,
| printed reports Of the Norfolk and Den
Yer conventions Of the American Fed
GRAFTON OF Labor in 1907 and 1898, thu
witness said he took no steps to pre-
vent the distribution of the bounC
volumes. He was read excerpts froc
speeches and reports he had made anc
| where he had admitted that he under
stood that the ban had been placed oil
the dissemination of the reports by tn,
| Injunction decree. However, he statec
| that he regarded that portion of tn,
order void as being an invasion of ri
| constitutional rights and the rights o
| his colleagues and organization.