Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-05
PROSECUTORS FILE BRIEF
Answer to Samuel Gompers and
Others in Contempt Proceedings.
BEFORE COURT OF APPEALS
Hearing of Arguments in Bucks
Stove and Range Case Feb
ruary 25 and 90.

close no such precedent OF Willful and
defiant disobedience and contempt OF the
courts authority the alleged viola
ton of the injunction against the boycott
of the Bucks Stove and Range COMPANY
by Samuel .Gompers. president of the
American Federation of Labor: iohn
Mitchell. one of its vice presidents. and
Frank Morrison. secretary of the fedora
ton. the committee of prosecutors to-
day filed in the Court of Appeals Of the
District of Columbia an exhaustive brief
in response TO the petition of the labor
leaders for a reversal of their conviction
Of contempt of court. The brief contains
llb printed pages.
The jail sentences imposed by Justice
right. of twelve months for Mr..
GomperS, nine months for Mr.. Mitchell
and six months for Mr.. Morrison. are
claimed in the brief not TO constitute
"cruel and unusual punishment as for
hidden by the Constitution Similar
terms of Imprisonment for contempt OF
court ii is pointed out. have been sus-
tanned by the United States Supreme
Court. The claim is made that even IL
these sentences had been unprecedent-
or unusual on that account because. it
Is urged. the alleged contempt trans
cends all previous disregard OF judicial
authority.
Statute of Limitations Discussed.
The claiIA of the bar OF the Statute OF
limitations as furnishing immunity to
the labor men because more than three
Years had elapsed after the alleged vio-
lation of the decree before the present
contempt proceeding was instituted is
brushed aside in the committee brief The
proposition is advanced that the ques-
ton OF the application of the statute or
limitations is not before the appellate
tribunal
While admitting that Gompers and his
associates had made the plea in answer
to the charges of the committee. it is
claimed, the court was IN no instance
called upon by the respondents to rule
upon this question; i'll no instance
did rule upon it, and I'm no instance is
there an exception in the record to such
ruling or one which indicates that in the
! minds of the respondents OF OF Their
counsel such proposition had been ruled
upon or excepted to.
Attempted refutations of the other
claims of the labor men are made in the
committees brief. Each proposition ad-
vanced by the alleged contemnors is op-
posed and the claim made that it is not
tenable in law refuted by the facts as
disclosed i'm the record.
Date Set for Hearing.
The Court of Appeals will devote the
entire sessions of February -, and Fep-
ruary 10 to the hearing of arguments of
counsel for the labor leaders and the
committee. Attorney jackson III. Ralston
of the local bar and Judge Alton B. Par
ker of New York will present the side
of labor. The committee comprises Jo-
seph J. Darlington and Clarence X. VIII
son of the local bar. Daniel Davenport of
Connecticut and James NJ. Beck of New
TIa, ip,A S.a,1fi
guments on appeals under the rule is
one hour to each side At the request OF
counsel the appellate court has increa sed
the time in this case to four hours on
each side.
The brief of the committee denies the
claim of the labor men that the lower
court erred in Overruling the plea Of the
statute of limitations. which was done. it
Wright and which plea was ''disregarded
and overruled whenever presented at "A
later period in the case
The record will be scanned in vain.
says the committee. for any presentation
OF the plea by the respondents. at any
stage of the case, for Il ruling by the
court except in a motion to dismiss all
the charges because a replication had not
been filed to a plea OF the statute. as to
some of them.
The opinion of the court. il is urged
was one accompanying its order. simply
overruling the motion tn dismiss the en-
tire proceedings In the case because OF
the omission to file a formal pleading. not
required by any .Illle. precedent or IN
stance to be found in the entire history
OF proceedings in contempt. TO "A defense
applicable. Il at all. to n . part OF the
charges only.
The committee argues that as the Zee
ord shows no action of the court OH the
limitation plea. there is no exception
taken, and nothing remains in the rec
ord which will allow the appellate court
to consider that matter.
~ the higher tribunal should differ with
the committee on the question of the
elimination of the plea OF the bar of the
statute, the committee, in the brief. cites
numerous authorities tending to show
that contempt of court is not criminal
offense; that it is not to be prosecuted ut
common law by indictment or informa-
ton 1t also urges and cites authority
to subStantiate the claim that courts OF
equity have inherent jurisdiction to pun
ish criminal contempt
THE summary power to commit ana
punish for contempts." states the brief.
'tending to obstruct or degrade the 'ad
m.nistratiOn of justice is inherent IN
courts Of chancery and other superior
courts. as essential to the execution OF
their powers and to the maintenance OF
their authority.
Review of Authorities.
The opinions relied on in the brief of