The Washington times., 1913-02-05
LAWYERS DEMAND
PRISON TERMS FOR
LABOR UNION HEADS
Committee of Prosecution Asks
Jail Sentences for Gompers
and Two Chiefs.
CONTINUED from First Page.)

CONTINUED from First Page.)
upon the courts authority and dignity,
of which II had found them guilty.
"As to the first suggestion, il Is
enough to say that while it is trus
that the litigation, in the course of
which the respondents had committed
their contempts, was at an end, and
the private right sought to be pro-
tected by The injunction. was no longer
pressing upon the court below for rs
aid, yet in. the truest sense the high
est interest of every litigant was in
volved and the private rights of every
citizen We're to be subserved by the
action of the court below.
As to the other suggestion that the
various incendiary statements OF the
respondents which the record contains
We're not attended by public disorder,
il mag be said that this was perhaps
due to the fact that the Federal courts
still possess adequate power to protect
themselves from insult and oppression
py those who would override them, OF
which power the record shows that
the resondents avowedly seek to de-
prive them by their anti-injuncticn
and contempt measures.
III the punishments imposed in tie
present case had been unprecedented
they would not have been on that ac-
count cruel or unusual. because our legal
annals contain no such precedent of will
ful and defiant disobedience and con-
.
in this case. The defendants the rec
ord shows, before the injunction was
granted. declared openly and defiantly
that they would not obey it II granted.
and, after the granting of the injunc-
tion, they declared in print, in public
speech. and in every other conceivable
way. that the injunction made no diff
ference. that they would no obey it.
jail Al than than obey obey It. that they "
appealed to their confederates and
heir. friends to disobey il and to
deprive il of all practical effect, and ad-
vtsed them that all who lived territori-
ally outside of the Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of the District of Col
umbia could disobey il with impunity.
IL they thereafter kept without the Dis
trict"
II regard to the inherent power of the
Equity Court to punish for contempt,
the prosecutors argue:
'The learned counsel for the respoa-
dents have not been able to cite any
authority for the proposition that courts
of equity have not the same inherent
power which. under all the authorities.
belongs to all courts to punish disobe-
dience and insult to its dignity and
authority. On the contrary. in every
instance in which a punitive sentence
has been imposed for contempt OF the
equity courts the proceeding has been
instituted. and prosecuted to the end,
IN those courts. The origin and the uni
versatility Of this inherent power, in all
courts. and the necessity for it. is rec
ognized in all the authorities upon the
subject. many of which win be cited in
other competitions IN this brief"
The prosecutors takesup the claim OF
the respondents that there was no IN
fentions OF the labor leaders to con-
time the boycott after the courts in
tended by Mr.. GomSers that he simply
exercised his right of free speech'' and
the liberty Of the pfess." To this the
prosecutors reply:
Refute Argument.
Neither the specifications of error
nor the brief of the respondents contain
an intimation' that the sinjUnctions IN
this case irfringed the respondents
constitutional rights of association. of
free press or of free speach. Those
contentious, once so prominent In this
litigation. and particularly in the litera-
ture of the respondents in evidence in
this case. have at last been abandoned"
Pointing out wherein the labor lead
ers are alleged TO have violated the
Injunction, the prosecutors quote these
extracts from a speech by President
Gompers:
'The court will soon give a decision
on the legal issue which has been
raised. We shall continue to maintain
that we have the right to publish the
nafne of the Bucks Stove and Range
Company upon the We don't patronize
list Should We be enjoined by the
court from doing so. the merits of the
case will not be altered, nor can any
court decision take from any man the
right. to bestow his patronage where
Bear in mind that you have right
20 decide how your money shall be ex-
pended: You may or may not buy the
products OF the Bucks Stove and Range
Company. There is no law nor edict
II court that can compel you TO buy a
Bucks stove or range"
Points to Privileges.
You cannot be prohibited from in
forming your friends and sympathizers
of the reason why you exercise this
right. You have also the right to in
form business men handling the Bucks
Stove and Range Company's products
of Its unfair attitude toward its EN-
ployes and ask them to give their SYM
pathy and aid in influencing the Bucks
stove and Range Company to deal fair
~ with its employees and come to an
honorable agreement with the union
primarily at interest"
Summing up the alleged instances of
violation of the courts decree, the
prosecutors charge:
The foregoing facts taken from the
much other testimony, establish the
fact that the boycott which both the
Supreme Court of the District of Co
lumbla and this court sought TO stay
by Injunction, continued with unabatcd
activity, in spite OF those injunctions.
Until July 20, 1910, when these respond
ents stopped ii. There is no foundation
whatever for the assertion in the re-
spondcnts' brief, or in their testimony,
that the boycott ended on the filing OF
the bond on December 23, 1907. or for
their other remarkable assertion that I
there is no evidence I'm the bill OF ex-
ceptions tending TO prove such continu-
ance Of the boycott.
Not only was there evidence tending
70 show the continuance of the boycott
subsequent TO December g. 1907 but the
Undisputed evidence in the case COM
pletelv established the fact that IL con-
finued down to Jr,y 20 1870 nearly
three years after the injunction was
granted"
Quote Leaders.
sExtended quotation from the speeches
OF Messrs. Gompers and Mitchell. edi-
torials In the American Federstionist,
resolutions adopted by organized labor,
and other alleged utterances 10 further
The supposed boycott are given by the
prosecutors The committee then con-
cludes this phase of the case by urging:
From the foregoing quotations from
the record in this case, ii is impossible
for any reasonable man to doubt that