Arizona republican., 1914-05-12
Samuel Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison Cleared of Boycotting Charge and of Contempt After Long Drawn-Out Fight.
SUPREME COURT
 MAKES DECISION
Opinion of Highest Tribu- nal Is That Statute of Limitations Protects De- fendants, Who Were in Court Twice.
ASSOCIATED PRESS p1sPArcH1

w NASHlNGION, May ll.-EnulnS seven years of bitter legal warfare, the supreme court set aside the sen tences imposed by the District of Columbia supreme court upon Sam uel Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank Morrison for contempt of court, in alleged violation of injunc- tions against boycotting the Buck $ Stove and Range company, because of the statute of limitations
 The question of whether the acts tempt was not passed upon, the court dsposing of the cases by hold irg that the prosecution was barred by the staute of limitations, the pro- ceedings having been started more than three years after the alleged Offenses.
 In 1911 the supreme court set aside the sentences against Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison because they had been prosecuted under criminal instead of civil statutes. The next day new proceedings were instituted but that was more than three years after the injunction trouble. The sentences then imposed were upset today, finally closing the cases.
 The contempt charges against Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank Morrison grew out of the in- junction issued by the district of Columbia supreme court to prohibit the federation boycotting the Bucks Stove and Range Company. Pro- ceeding as if the contempt cases were part of the injunction suit, the district supreme court held the labor leaders in contempt and sentenced Gompers to one year in jail Mitchell to nine months and Morrison to six months The supreme court of the United States on May 15, 1911, set aside those sentences holdAg that penal sentences had been erroneous ly imposed in a civil suit
 The day after the sentences were set aside the district supreme court began new proceedings against the labor leaders A committee was ap- pointed to report whether there was reasonable cause for holding the men guilty of contempt It consisted of J. J. Darlington. Daniel Davenport and James NJ Beck, attorneys of record for the Bucks Stove and Rrange Company.
 The committee reported that the three men had been guilty of con- tempt It charged that Gompers in December, 19O7 had hurried out an issue of the American Federationst, containing the name of the Bucks Stove and Range Company on the We Don't Patronize List so as to have it published before the injunc- tion took effect, and circulated the edition after the injunction became effective. It charged contempt for court in various utterances of Com pers in speeches and editorialy in the Federationist. Still another charge was that he printed and cir culated a paper known as An Ur- gent Appeal for Financial Aid In Defense of Free Press and Free Speech" in which it was contended that he suggested members of the Federation might violate an injunc- tion and defeat it's object provided they were not within the District of Columbia.
 Frank Morrison was charged with CO., operating with Gompers, as secre- tary of the Federation, in making these publications. Mitchell was like wise charged with cooperation in the circulation of the Federationist and of the Urgent Appeal and with presiding over a meeting of the United Mine Workers on January 25, 1908, when a resolution was adopted placing the Bucks Stove and Ranges on the unfair list, and providing for fines for members who purchased such a stove or range
 The report was approved by the district supreme court and the iden- tical sentences of the first proceed ings were imposed.
 l The District of Columbia court of appeals remanded the case with di- direction that the sentences on Com pers be modified to one months i'm prisonment and the imprisonment of Mitchell and Morrison be changed to fine of $500 for each man.
 The district supreme court com mittee insisted before the supreme court that the court of appeals had no right to modify the sentences AL ton B. Parker, recent presidential candidate, and Jackson H. Ralston contended the men had not been guilty of. any contempt
 THE WEATHER