The Washington times., 1913-02-05

The committee of prosecutors takes
President Gompers to task for alleged
Inconsistency" In his statements about
! the meaning OF a boycott" and the
| good faith of the federation officials In
trying TO obey the courts injunction,
On this point the brief says:
Has Own Idea. .-.
"A means of enabling himself to testify
| TO these otherwise hopelessly inconsis-
tent statements appears to have been
| found by the respondent by establishing
/ in his own mind a conception OF a boy
| colt which would enable him. in his
own consciousness, to differentiate be-
tween maintaining a publicity with re-
| functions which would destroy the
business of the Bucks Stove and Range
Company, and aiding or abetting the
boycott
.;At page Sss of the record he asserts
that the constitution of the American
Federation of Labor does not provide
for the prosecution of boycotts; at page
455 he testifies that he 'obeyed the in
junction in everv particular, in so far
as 1t was for the purpose of carrying
on boycott or aiding or abetting It;
at page 462 he testifies that the boy
colt ended, so far as the A. F. of L.
or its officers are. concerned, on De-
cember %, 1907 and, at page 457, that
tut A. Ol Ia. DOyCOttS
earlier years. but not in 1907. At page
455, however, he defines a boycott as
an agreement of two or more persons
to refrain from bestowing their patron
age upon any individual-it may Wen
be there were no agreements in some
senses of that word, formally entered
into while the injunctions were in force,
and that the various acts of the re-
spondent Gompers were not INTENDED
by him to aid or abet any formal agree
ments' to that effect. --
"The metaphysical and fallacious
character of this distinction is finally
admitted by him at pages 467-46S Of the
record, where, after claiming that pub
fishing the names of firms or manu-
facturers in the We don't uatropize,
list is different from a boycott, he
finally admits that there may be very
little difference between this and a boy
colt In witness construction of this
term-substantially the same thing in
effect"
Limitation Not Issue,
Referring to the contention of the
labor counsel that the statute of limita-
ton should hold in the proceedings, the
prosecutors assert:
The next objection. attempted to be
presented by the sixth, seventh, and
alleged refusal Of the court below to
hnd the charges barred by the statute
of limitations No basis for any one OF
these assignments, however, Is to be
found iii the record.
The defense. of limitations is, of
course, exclusively statutory, and,
wherever interposed, presents simply
the question whether the proceeding is
one covered by the terms of the statute
From its inception, for example, e has
been held not to apply to any proceed
ing in equity, because the prohibition
&c f0t he hrfr, 80
within the period specified, and suits in
equity do not fall within the legal no.
menclature, actions Independently of
any, or of all, the considerations pre-
sented in this bries upon this subject,
It would seem to be an exceedingly
court of equity, proceeding within it's
own jurisdiction ana according to it's
own methods of procedure to vindicate
its authority, Is ipso facto converted
into court of law, and its proceedings
into an action or into a prosecution
within the meaning of a statute which
Is plainly directed to prosecutions for
ohenses. in the criminal courts"
Quote Statutes.
Answering the claim of the contem-
nors that contempt of court is GRIM
inal offense, he committee says:
Contempt of court is not a criminal
OIIenSS, IN any general sense Oh the
term, unless il can be claimed to have
been SO created by a Federal statute
Such a claim, recognized as essential
to their contention, was made by re-
spondents' counsel in the court below.
declaring ii to have been made criminal
by Section rs Of the Revised Statutes
which indicates that courts Of the United
States shall, among others. have the
power to punish by fine or Imprisonment
contempts of their authority, not to ex-
their presence or SO near thereto as to
obstruct the administration of justice,
the misbehavior of their officers, and
the disobedience or resistance by any
party, etc, to any lawful writ, process,
order, rule, decree or command of such
courts.
THE omission to renew that claim,
definitely, in their brief, would indicate
that some study has since been given to
the decisions of the Supreme Court upon
that subject
The original contempt of court pro-
ceedings were begun in 1908 and the
three labor leaders were adjudged gull
ty of contempt of court and sentenced
to jail The judgment of the District
Supreme Court was upheld by the Court
of appeals. but was reversed by the
United States Supreme Court on May
Is. 1911. Justice Wright appointed the
committee Of prosecutors. The commit
tee reported June %, 1911, and the TAX
ing OF testimony began December 80.
1911. Subsequently arguments were
made before the six judges and the re-
spondents were again found guilty and
again sentenced to Jail.