New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-12
FATHER TIME FREES
COMPERS and AIDS
Supreme Court Decides
Statute of Limitations
Closes Case.
LONG FIGHT ENDED
ON CONTEMPT CHARGE
Mitchell and Morrison, as Labor
Heads, Involved In Big
Boycott Struggle.
tFrorn The Tribun. Bureau.

Washington. May 1.-THE sentences mo
POSED upon Samuel Gompers. John Mt
chell and Frank Morrison. officers Of tia
American Federation Of Labor. for VIOLA
ton Of the injunction OF the Supreme
Court OF the Distric; Of Columbia in the
Bucks Stove and Range proceedings. were
set aside by the Supreme Court OF the
United States to-day on the ground that
the alleged offences were not committed
within the three years covered by the
statute Of limitations
To-day's decision brings 10 an end seven
years litigation. which grow out OF the
long controversy between the Bucks Stove
and Range Company and the Federation
OF Labor
The original parties made their peace
long ago. but the District Supreme Court
was not satisfied with tho conduct OF
Gompers and his associates and instituted
the contempt proceedings. which finally re-
suited in a sentence OF thirty days IN ian
for Gompers and fines Of $500 each for his
associates
justices Van Devanter and Pitney dis
scented from the finding OF the Supreme
Court to-day.
This is not an indictment for con-
spiracy.' the court SAYS; "it IL a charge
OF specific acts i'm disobedience OF an in-
Junction The acts are not charged as
evidence but as substantive offences; IL
is contempt. was punishable as such, and
was charged as SUCH and therefore each
must be Judged by itself; and so we come
to what. as we have already inumated.
is the real question in the case.
1T is urged in the first place that con-
tompts cannot be crimes because. al
though punished by Imprisonment and
therefore, If crime, infamous, they are noe
within the protection OF tho Constitution
and the amendments giving a right OF
/ trial by Jury. etc, TO persons charged
with such crimes. But the provisions OF
the Constitution are not mathematical
formulas having their essence in form.
They are organic, living institutions
transplanted from English soil. Their sig
niicance is vital. not formal.
1T does not follow that contempts of
the class under consideration are not
crimes. or rather. in the language Of the
statute. offences.
/ But this question is not ono TO be an
swered by rehnements and curious In
quiry In our opinion the proper inter-
probation OF the statute begins with tho
substantive, not with the adjective
part. The substantive portion OF the
section is that no person shall be tried
for any offence within a certain TINA
These words are OF universal scope-
What follows Is natural way OF ex-
pressing that the proceedings must begin
within three years, indictment and infor.
nation being the usual modes BY which
they are begun.
Indeed. the punishment OF these Of
fences peculiarly needs 10 be speedy IL
it Is 10 occur The argument loses little
Of its force II II should he determined
hereafter-a matter on which we express
no opinion-that I'm the present state OF
the law an indictment would not lie for
a contempt OF court Of the United States.
Even il the statute does not cover the
case by it's express words. as we think IL
does. still IN dealing with the punish
ment Of crime rule should be laid down,
If not by Congress. by this court The
power 20 punish for contempt must have
some limit IN time. and I'm defining that
limit we should have regard 10 what has
been the policy Of the law from the foun-
dation Of tho government"
TIE decision settled the point that con-
tempts OF court are crimes The point
has been raised IN contempt cases
throughout the country.
The contempts charged against the labor
leaders occurred in 1907 and early In 1903.
about the time the District OF Columbia
Supreme Court issued an Injunction pro-
hlbiting the federation officials from boy
cotting the Bucks Stove and Range Cons
pany. Of 81 Louis. then in labor war
with organized labor.