The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1914-05-12
GOMPERS Freed
BY HIGH COURT
Nations Supreme Tribunal
! Reverses Edict Of District
Jurists IN Case.
QUlETUs on LITIGATION
Quotes Statute Of Limitations To-
Prove Labor Chef Should
Not Be Punished.
QUIETUS ON LITIGATION

Not Be Punished.
Samuel Gompera Frank Morrison, and
John Mitchell WIN not Be compelled 70
undergo punishment for contempt Of an
Injunction Of the District supesme Court
i After nearly seven years Of iitisation.
in which their cases have twice been
before the Supreme Court that august
the case which will result In AL OF
the defendants being discharged.
The case was decided today In favor
of the three defendants. oficsrs Of the
/ American Federation OF Labor. on the
ground that the statute Of limitations
had interviewed In their behalf before
the second proceedings were instituted
against them In tho District Supreme
Court
Justice Holmes read the opinion Of
| the majority Of the court. reversing the
.firmed, with notifications. by the Dis
trict Court OF Appeals. Justices Pitney
and Van Devanter dissented-S
The statute osotea.
The statute under which the Supreme
Court today set aside the sentences Inn
posed on the three labor chiefs Is the.
following. In Part:
mo person shall be prosecuted. tried
or punished for any offense. not capital.
unless the Indictment Is found or the in
formation Instituted within three years
next after such offense shall have been
committed"
The majority Of the court found that
most Of the charges, In fact all that
worthy OF serious consideration. related
to alleged offenses committed prior to
May 16, 1905. and the second present.
ment against the defendants was not
May 1s, 1911, so that more than three
years have interviewed The court found
that as to Mitchell and Morrison every
offense alleged against them occurred
more than three years before the sec
ond Investigation was ordered. and rs
to Gompers, every charge worthy of
serious consideration related to acts more
than three years old at the time the
second investigation was ordered
Given Thirty Days.
The final sentences imposed on Gompers
and his associates by the District Court
Of Appeals were that Gompers should
serve thirty days in Jail. and that Nor
rison and Mitchell should pay fines Of
$500 each. Justice Holmes declared that
the only issue involved In the case was
as to whether the statute of limitations
had interviewed. Alton B. Parker and
jackson H. Ralston. attorneys for the
defendants, had invoked that statute.
Attorneys for the prosecution had re-
sponded with the claim that contempt
of court was not one OF the offenses con-
templated by the statute. but Justice
Holmes and majority Of the court over
ruled this contention
The attorneys for the prosecution also
insisted that even IL the statute did ap-
ply, that the offense charged against
the defendants was q continuing one.
and the case was on . par with that Of
Kissel. one of the sugar trust defend |
ants, whose conviction for conspiracy |
was affirmed by the Supreme Court, over |
a plea of the statute Of limitations.
which had been interposed In Kissel's
behalf To this argument. Justice Holmes |
replied:
This is not an Indictment for con-
spiracy, II is a charge Of specific acts In |
of an Injunction. The acts |
are not charged as evidence, but as sub |
offenses." .
By holding that the prosecution was |
barred BY the statute of limitations. the /
Supreme Court was not put to the neces- |
sity of passing upon the merits of the |
charge made against the defendants. |
Without deciding the question raised at |
the last argument before the court, as to |
contempt Of court L. an Of
Tense for which an indictment would lie, |
the court went back to the English de- |
cisions for authority upon which It held |
that contempt Is a crime. and that II il |
an offense within the meaning Of the |
statute of limitations cited above.
Argued Two Times.
The decision in the Gompers' case was
after the case had been argued
for the second time in the present term. |
II was heard early in the term. with
Justice Lurton absent, and when the
court reassigned the case for argument |
a few weeks ago. 1t was generally ex-
pected that the eight Justices had divided
evenly on the merits Of the issue pre-
sented, and II was fully expected that 4
Justice Lurton would furnish the decid-
ing vote in determining the fate of the
labor chiefs, but evidently IL there was
an even division. the reargument brought
two of the justices over to the side Of /
the defendants. Justice Lurton was re-
corded today with the majority OF the
court.
The Gompers case has been one of the
nest celebrated cases before the Supreme
Court In recent years. It was begun in /
December, 1907. when an injunction was
issued by the District Supreme Court on
the application Of the Bucks Stove and i
Range Company. OF st. Louis, restrain
ing the three defendants, as officers of
the American Federation Of Labor. from |
practicing boycott against the St. Louis
firm. It was alleged in the application
for Injunction that Gompers and HIS
associates had been publishing In the
American Federationist. the name of
The Sc LOUIS sirm In the unfair list, or
We don't patronize" list which had the
eject Of instituting a boycott against /,