The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1916-10-20

as we'll as though its delegates to
the American Federation OF Labor
were enjoined equally with us.
Even our attorneys were enjoined.
Now, | did write editorials and APP
peals, | did write articles, and on
the pul lie platform | did discuss
the difficulties with which we were
confronted and the principles which
were involved. In consequence l
was hailed before the court and so
was John Mitchell, and Frank Nor
rison, The charge against John
Mitchell was that he sighed a cir
cular appeal for funds to carry the
case before the courts; Frank Nor
rison was charged with circulating
the editorials / had written and
the appeals which | had drafted,
and i was charged with writing and
uttering them. Frank Morrison
was sentenced to six mouths. i'm
prlsonment, John Mitchell to nine
months Imprisonment, ana I, be
cause | was the greatest criminal of
the three, was sentenced to i'm
prisonment for one year.
said to the court, and | say now
that the whole world would be but
very small prison cage if | could
not express to my fellow citizens
and my fellow workers the i1d9,
ment, the conscience | feel ii to be
a duty to present to them upon
ary question affecting the rights,
the interests and the liberties of
the people of this country; and l
would prefer to be il really prac
tical cage honest my convictions
and with the ability and opportuni-
| ty to save to my fellows their right
to discuss by print, by word of
mouth or in another way, the rights
to which they are entitled under
the constitution of our country
We appealed that it was reversed.
The trial began all over again.
We were again sentenced to the
same terms and upon appeal, upon
a technicality, the court declared
the whole proceedings out of order
and we didn't go to prison. The
Judge who sentenced us is no lon
ger Judge
| have referred to these matters
for no other purpose than to say
this to you; that we entered into
that cause and case with your eyes
open. We knew the injunction
forbade us to discuss these things.
l knew it. But we held that under
the constitutional guarantee the
right Of free assemblage, free
speech and free press could not be
denied TO us ii advance by an in
Junction We held that if a man
uttered in print or orally any state
ment which was seditious, treach-
erous, slauderous or libelous he
could and he ought to be made to
bear the responsibility Of its utter
ance; but for Judge to issue an
injunction in advance, to say that
man shall not discuss any one
thing is tc deny the fundamental
right Of free speech and free press,
and it was that test we were going
to make.
1t brought to the attention of the
people of the United States The
question involved and we fought
and fought, and fought economi
cal,y and politically, until the Con
gress of the United States passed
the Clayton Anti Trust Law will
its labor provisions and the Presi
dent OF tie United States signed i
on October 10, 1914 That law i
is now in effect, and no less an au
thority than Attorney Genera
: Wickersham has declared that will
the labor provisions Of the Claytol
Anti Trust Law no such case cat
: be maintained in the federal court
hereafter as was maintained agaius
the latters No such injunction
can be issued by the courts as hav
been issued in the past No sue
Outrageous proceedings as suspend
ing trial by jury can again b
! enacted in the federal courts OF th
United States.
T And let me call attention to th
, fact that the first sentence of Ser
: tion 8 of the Clayton Anti Tru.
u law makes this declarations ''Ths