Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-05-24
LABOR HEADSASK
WRIT OF REVIEW
Want U. S. Supreme Court to
Pass on District Court of APP
peaIs Contempt Decision.
CLAIM HUMAN LIBERTY
PRINCIPLES ARE INVOL WE'D
Errors in Ruling of Lower Tribunal
Cited by Counsel for Gompers,
Mitchell and Morrison.

petition for writ of certiorari. nv
which the Supreme Court OF the United
States will review the decision Of the
Court of Appeals of the District in tire
contempt cases against Samuel Com
pers. John Mitchell and Frank Morrison.
labor leaders. was today filed with the
clerk of the Supreme Court of the United
States by the attorneys for the defend
ants. The attorneys are Jackson H.
Ralston. Frederick l.. Siddons and vii
liam F. Richardson Of Washington aud
Alton b. Parker of New York. counsel
The petition will he laid before the
court when IL meets Monday.
In the petition the attorneys say:
Your petitioners represent that there
are involved in the record of these cases
certain principles important In their bear
ing upon the development of human hh-
erty. That If the position taken by tho
majority OF the Court Of Appeals be cor
rect. the courts of this country possess
the unrestrained right. and AT any dis
tance of time after the commission OF a
supposed offense against their dignity
(an ofYense, II in any case at all, against
the dignity of the government. and not
one OF its branchesp, to pursue the Offend
err, a right which exists in no other
branch of the government. and the exist
ence OF which negatives all the ideas or
the advantages of judicial peace through
the passing OF time inculcated by philo-
sophical writer's. lawyers and judges.
Question Never Before Passed On.
That to permit the punishment OF
men for alleged contempt years after the
time Of the act supposed to have been
committed. and when the materials for
the defense may. have been destroyed. is
to lay the foundation for future injus-
tice That this question. important ii
is, has never, been passed upon By any
federal court, save in this instance by the
District Court OF Appeals, and then only
by a divided bench
The petitioners claim also that to per-
NIT the preliminary determination of the
question as to whether the offense OF
contempt of court has been committed to
rest in the hands of men who have ex-
pressed an abiding conviction OF the guilt
OF those who are supposed to have Of
Tended would be directly to attack the
dignity of the courts themselves. Is a
violation of judicial discretion. and cal
culated to bring the process of law into
contempt.
After giving history of the case the
petitioners set forth that the trial court
as we'll as the majority OF the Court or
Appeals erred in their conclusion of the
facts. and that the Court of Appeals
further erred in its specific conclusions
of fact and its conclusion of law. among
other things, in the following respects:
Errors by Court Cited.
The court did not pass expressly upon
| the error as assigned i'm the proceedings
below. wherein the court overruled mo-
ton to quash the same upon the ground
that they were criminal i'm their nature.
these proceedings being brought i'm equity.
1T did not expressly pass upon the err
ror committed by the court below IA
overruling the motion to set aside inc
sub Tod hx committed
at did not pass upon the error conf
mitted by the court below in refusing to
strike out the names of the COMMITTEES
and substitute the name Of the attorney
of the United States for the District OF
Columbia, the committee having been bi-
ased by reason of their employment a.
attorneys for the plaintiff in the snit OF
the Bucks Stove and Range Company
agt. Samuel Gompers et al !:
THE majority OF the Court OF Appeals
erred in sustaining the court below in re-
fusfng to dismiss these proceedings. no
proper replication having been filed -
the plea OF the statute of limitations.
THE majority Of the Court OF Appeals
erred in sustaining the court below in
overruling the plea OF the statute OF
limitations herein.
THE majority OF the Court of Appeals
erred I'm finding that there was any ev'-
dence tending to hold any respondent
guilty of the charges made against him.
| or OF any OF them.
No Violations Charged.
1.-The ajority of the Court of Appeals
erred in holding this respondent guilty of
violations of the injunction of March y.
1905, no violation thereof having been
charged.
THE Court of Appeals erred in nnding
that any unlawful boycott existed "a
that any act in furtherance OF a boycott
was INDUCED in by any respondent after
December %. 1907.
The majority of the Court of Appeals
erred in not finding that any charges
against any respondent were barred by
the statute of limitations.
The majority Of the Court of Appea =
erred i'm finding the respondents sailtN
of the charges against them. and alsotnl
SO doing relying on matters not III evi-
dence and on charges not sustained
THE majority Of the Court OF Appeals
erred in nfiicting a criminal punishmeht
when sitting otherwise as a court Of
equity"
That these respondents. by their az
pearance and answers, purged them
selves of any possible charge or con-
tempt, but that, nevertheless. the court
Of appeals erred in holding them guilty.