Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-03-12
ENDS HIS ARGUMENT
Attorney Darlington Scores
Gompers and Others.
LAW AGAINST ANARCHY
Says This Should Be Title to Pro-
ceedings Now in Progress.
TRIBUTE PAID JUDGE PARKER
Lawyer Declares He Is Unable to
See What the Defense
Will Be.

Law against anarchy should be the
title to the proceedings now being heard
by five justices of the District Supreme
Court instead of In re Gompers, Mitchell
and Morrison. because the position taken
by the respondents is that they will fol-
low their own inclinations, despite the
opinions of the tribunals created by the
Constitution to interpret the law
This statement concluded the opening
argument Of Attorney ]. ]. Darlington of
the committee of prosecutors in the
hearing of the contempt proceedings now
in progress in Equity Court No. ..
Mr.. Darlington pointed out that Mr.
Ralston, for the labor men, had suggest
ed that the case was improperly entitled
and should read, United States against
Gompers ct al" He said he agreed with
counsel that another title might be more
appropriate, but declared his version of
the new title would be Law VS.. An
archy."
Before concluding his remarks Mr.. Dar-
lington paid a high tribute to Alton B.
Parker, chief counsel for the respond
ents. both as a lawyer and citizen. AS
a lawyer, he said, Judge Parker had at
tanned the distinction of presiding justice
of the supreme court of the state of New
said, he had the highest respect.
AS citizen, Mr.. Darlington pointed
out Judge Parker had been the selection
of many citizens for the position of Pres
ident Of the United States. and that he
himself had voted for the election of
Judge Parker.
Awaits Parker's Contention.
Mr.. Darlington said he was anxious to
see if this great lawyer and prominent
citizen would contend before this court
that Gompers and his associates had the
right to set up their claim of free speech
and free press in the face of the de-
cision of the United States Supreme
Court in the previous contempt proceed
ing.
The speaker praised the loyalty of a
lawyer to his client, but pointed out that
in his opinion there exists a loyalty that
transcends the interest of the client, and
this is the loyalty of the lawyer to the
oath he takes at the time of his admis-
sion to the bar-the oath to support the
Constitution of the United States.
Mr.. Darlington declared he had not
read line to the court in pointing out
the alleged contempts except such as
came from the mouths of the respond,
ents, and that from these he considered
he had proved they had held the order
Of the court in contempt and had willfully
violated 1t.
Az an. excuse for not having spoken
ct the defense of the respondents, Mr..
Darlington admitted he does not know
what 1t is
Il cannot conceive the defense in this
case." he said; lit cannot be that in the
face of the Supreme Court decision 1t
right to boycott. that they had the
right to disregard the decision because
1t violated the right of free speech
and free press or that they could vio-
late the order of an inferior court
until 1T was sustained by higher tri-
bunal The Supreme Court has held
against all these contentious"
Attorney Clarence r. Wilson continued
after the recess, his arraignment Of John
Mitchell vice president of the American
with the urgent appeal" and with the
resolution passed by convention of mine
workers in Indianapolis over which he
presided. Mr.. Wilson explained to the
court that the refusal Of the United
States attorney to take up the contempt
proceedings was made on his own in
itiative and without referring the matter
to the Department of Justice. Mr.. VIII
sons name was added to the committee
as an individual lawyer and not in his
official capacity.
Judge Parker, shortly after . o'clock
this afternoon, began the opening argu-
ment for the defense.
Mr.. Darlington's Argument.
Mr.. Darlington yesterday afternoon be-
gan the opening argument on behalf Of
the committee of prosecutors, scoring
both Gompers and Morrison for what he
called willful and fragrant violations Of
the injunctive order Of the court. Com
pers and Morrison were not guilty cul-
pable, the prosecutor said.
1T was Gompers,' said Mr.. Darlington,
''who composed and published these va
rious editorials. reports and circulars and
who made these defiant speeches.
Mr.. Morrison was the secretary of the
American Federation of Labor charged
with the duty of circulating the issues OF
the Federationist, and these circulars and
these reports. In other words his acts
appear to have been largely ministerial
OF course. that does not exculpate him.
His duty was to obey the orders Of this
court regardless of what was his occu-
patton and employment but he stands
upon a different footing from Mr.. Com
pers In the degree of responsibility for
these various acts. He stands in a posi-
ton. which. think. entities him to con-
sideration."
Mr.. Darlington pointed out that both
Gompers and Mitchell took advantage of
the immunity of the statute which pre-
vented them being confronted at this
hearing with their sworn statements
| made in the previous contempt proceed
| ings, which were set aside by the United
States Supreme Court.
THAT is their right" said the lawyer,
"and l have no criticism to make OF 1t.
but Mr.. Morrison alone of the three has
been open, frank and candid. lie has
claimed no immunity: He has freely
consented that his answers and testi-
mony in the former case be read. In the
view of the committee that entities him
to some consideration in the matter Of
punishment
Two Points to Consider.
Mr.. Darlington urged that the alleged
violations of the court order could raise
only two considerations. One, he said
was whether the federation officials could
disregard the terms of the injunction be-
cause counsel informed them that por-
tons Of 1t were in contravention of con-
stttutional rights. or whether they could
| constitute themselves and counsel an zap
pellate court to rule on legal points,
ignoring the tribunals OF the land. The
| second, he stated. was whether 'Constt-
tutional rights nullified court orders and
gave individuals the right to say and
print what they wished. where they wish
ed and when they wished.
| Mr.. Darlington said the respondents had
no right to violate the injunction under
any pretext until 1t had been set aside by
| an appellate court.
| A motion to dismiss the whole con-
tempt proceedings was made by Attorney
| Jackson H. Ralston for the labor leaders
| on the ground that they were being tried
in equity when the rules governing con-