The Washington times., 1912-03-14
LABOR CHIEFS HEAR
FINAL PLEAS MADE
IN THEIR BEHALF
Alton B. Parker Pleads That
His Clients Be Not
Imprisoned.

"Shreds and patches woven to make
a straitjacket for these men," Is the
way Attorney Jackson II. Ralston char
acterized the alleged contemptuous acts
charged against his clients in his clos
ing argument today in defense of Sam
uel Gompers, John Mitchell, and Frank
Morrison before Justice Dan Thew
Wright and his associates.
American citizens will cry out in
protest If these men are convicted for
simply exercising their constitutional
rights" he shouted. They exercised
only the liberty of free speech and free
press, and had no intention of violating
any court order"
Attorney Daniel Davenport, of Bridge
port, Conn, a member of the committee
OF prosecutors. followed Mr.. Ralston.
He reviewed the controversy between
organized labor and the Bucks Stove
and Range Company, and gave the his
tory of the American Federation of
Labor, paying President Gompers subtle
compliments occasionally, although in
the main be upbraided the labor leaders.
There was a time when Gompers
carried under his hat the whole
american Federation of Labor the
organization now having a member
said. when he was not working at
his trade he was fostering this in
fsnt organization, and it grew"
Respective counsel engaged in sew
eral tits today. Once this afternoon.
while Attorney Davenport was read
ing from book. he was interrupted
py Attorney Ralston, who inquired II
the matter was in the record
i think as we go along you will
. be surprised to find a lot of evidence
you had put in the record" replied
the prosecutor.
NO I'll not he surprised at any
thing in the record after seeing what
you've put in," shot back Attorney
Palston.
Judge Parker pleaded with the court
not to Jail the labor trio in the event
OF their conviction. but Attorney Raj
ston made no reference to possible
imprisonment Of his clients He
rather urged that they had violated
no law and had not disobeyed the
spirit of the injunction order.
Motives Impugned.
lmpugning the motives of the COM
mittee in putting SCRAPS of editorials
into the record without amplifying the
Objectionable utterances with a sate-
ment of the circumstances, Attorney
Ralston urged the court to consider the
alleged contemptuous statements in the
light of their entirety and note that the
respondents really had in mind the
movement for remedial legislation rather
than the furtheranCe Of the Bucks Stove
and Range Company boycott
II would advise no man to disregard
a decree of the court, but l can under
stand the point of view of the man who
says 1 will not let them take away my
constitutional rights" he declared.
Ihose are not vain words in the Con-
stltution which guarantee free speech
ana 1ree press, and I can understand
now these men resented any infringe
ment or their rights. The decision OF
Jusu'e Gould gave to these men all
their constitutional Iiberties-the right
10 sell labor as they please and the
right to use their patronage where thew
hked' above all the right of free speech
and free press, but the order went too
lar beyond the intent of the court"
Counsel In Clash
At this point Attorney Daniel Dsven-
port one of the prosecutors. interrun+-
ed the speaker and asked permission 70
submit question to the counsel for
the defense.
on well, go on; but you will have
your turn, replied Attorney Ralston
AFTER hesitatins d moment.
the prosecutor then asked If Mr.. Raj
ston did not remember that he had
asked Justice Gould to modify the terms
or the order to conform with his opin-
ION, and that the court refused.
NO: ! don't remember any such
thing, impatienty retorted the speak
er Ignoring any further question on
the point
When Attorney Ralston was explain
ing what the prosecutors had called the
'doctrine of the right to reserve for
themselves the decision of their consti-
tutional rights and broadly limiting
that the three labor leaders were with
IN rights when they are alleged to have
glSresarded portions of the injunction
decree which they thought were in CON
traVention of their liberty as citizens,
District Attorney Wilson, who had
called the theory "heresy and anarchy, -
asked permission to ply question to
the speaker.
The United States Attorney cited a
hypothetical case based on a legal
decision in a California trial, and in =
uuir"d what should a person do with
respect to Obeying court order be-
tween the time 1t was made and the
time an upper court had set it aside
He stated Mr.. RalstOn's argument was
not quite clear to him, but he receiv-
ed no reply.
Then | don't get any answer" in
qulred the prosecutor
mo, you don't get any answer, be-
cause 7 would feign to argue with
such an unsvmpathetic individual
might as well talk 20 the mOon," as
serted the attorney with a fash OF
feeling.