CURT COMMENT OF THE TIMES
I5y decision of the United States su
preme court, Gompers, Mitchell and
Morrison are adjudged not guilty of con
tempt of court. The case is remanded to
the lower court with instructions to dis
miss. And most wonderful of all, the
decision was unanimous, all nine judges
concurring. This is one of the vt?ry few
unanimous opinions handed down by the
supreme court during recent years. The
court holds that even if the men were
guilty of contempt the penalty should
have been a fine payable to the plaintiffs
in the action, and large enough to pro
vide for the payment of reasonable dam
ages. The case between the Buck Stove
and Kange Co. and the American Fed
eration of Labor having been settled
since Judge Wright sentenced the there
Federation officials to jail for contempt,
there is nothing further for the courts to
consider.
This case is familiar to all newspaper
readers. The Buck Stove and Range Co.
sought an injunction to restrain the offi
cials of the American Federation of
Labor from publishing the company's
name under the "We Do Not Patronize"
list of the American Federationist. The
restraining order was granted and ig
nored by the Federation officials. Gom
pers as president and Morrison as sec
retary, respectively editor and publisher
more attention then that it did last fall,
of the Federationist. Mitchell wras
brought into the case because he pre
sided over a convention of Mine Work
ers where a resolution boycotting the
stove company was adopted. The court
held that he was guilty of contempt be
cause he did not prevent the adoption of
the resolution. The appellate court sus
tained Judge Wright's setnence of im
prisonment for contempt, and appeal
was immediately taken to the supreme
court. The decision handed down Mon
day forever disposes of the famous case.
The outcome is a victory for organized
labor. It re-guarantees the right of free
speech, subject to whatever damages
may be caused by the free exercise there
of. In other words, except in criminal
libel one may not be jailed for exercising
the right of free speech. The attempt to
gag the labor press vvas obvious to all dis
cerning readers, and had it been success
ful the next step would have been to gag
the rest of the free press of America. The
press of America, newspapers and maga
zine, owe to the officials of the American
Federation of Labor their thanks for hav
ing fought to a victorious finish the fight
against muzzling the press.
Two splendid arguments for the
initiative and referendum and tire
direct election of senators are afforded
by Illinois and Ohio. In both states
corrupt legislators have defied the ex
pressed will of the people have sold
special privileges and have beti-ued
their constituents into the hands of
special privilege. In Illinois the man
who received an overwhelming majority
of the primary vote for senator was
turned down in favor of "Billy'' Loii
mer, whose election seemingly cost some
eminent dealers in legislation a pretty
penny. Then the legislature that sold
out to Lorimer refused to submit an
initiative and referendum amendmen to
the constitution, although both parties
were pledged to do so. In Ohio graft has
been reigning supreme and a score of leg
islators are now under arrest charged
with having accepted bribes. 'With di
rect legislation Lorimer could never have
corrupted the entire electorate, and
shorn of ability to corrupt men like Lori
mer could not be elected to the senate.
With the initiative and referendum "gun
behind the door" corporations and spe
cial privilege seekers could not afford to
take the financial risk of buying legisla
tive favors, knowing that the people
would have the final say. Representa
tive government is not a failure, but it is
yet a long waj's from perfection, and un
til perfection is reached the people
should be in a position to protect them
selves against misrepresentatives. The
initiative and referendum affords , the
simpliest and handiest method of protection.
Old John Dietz of Wisconsin made the
not uncommon mistake of thinking that
a single individual had rights that a
tariff-fed and insolent trust was 'bound
to respect. Dietz had a little home, a
little sawmill and power dam on a Wis
consin river. He was in the way of a
powerful lumber combine, and the :oia
bine set out to eliminate Dietz. First it
found a court with a mind suitably dis
posed and secured its order dispossess
ing the old man. Then, when Dietz, see
ing that he did not stand any show be
fore courts owing their lease of office to
his enemies, proceeded to defend his
castle. Time and again deputy marshals
took pot shots at the old man and mem
bers of his family. When the old man
took to retaliating in kind the lumber
combine and the officers of the court
were horrified. Immediately an army of
deputies beseiged the Dietz horn?. Hun
dreds of shots were fired at Diet, but
when Dietz returned the fire and killed
a deputy he was instantly guilty of mur
der. That he was defending his home cut
no figure, for even the home is not a
sacred intsitution since courts arrogated
to themselves powers scarcely second to
those of the Almighty. Dietz was over
powered by numbers, tried and adjudged
guilty of murder. Perhaps Dietz is
guilty of murder. Perhaps he had no
rights where he was. Perhaps he should
have quietly given up possession of the
little home and business. We are not
competent to sit in judgment. But we
are sorry that the old man has lost out
and. now stands a good chance of paying
the penalty with his life. And yet we can
not help rejoicing in his grit, his bravery
and his perserverance. But hanging
does seem to be too severe a punishment
for killing a soldier-of-fortune like a dep
uty marshal.
Will Maupin's Weekly is inclined to
the opinion that there is no crime in kill
ing a man who needs killing. The only
trouble about that condition of things is
to render fit judgment as to when a man
needs to be killed. Most people hold to
this opinion, hence the oft-mentioned
"unwritten law." Near a certain Mis
souri town something like thirty years
ago lived a farmer and his only daugh
ter, the wife and mother having died in
childbirth. The farmer reared his daugh
ter, and she grew into a handsome
woman. When she was about 19 years
old the scion of a rich St. Joseph family
located in the little city to practice law.
He became acquainted with the young
lady, and by devious arts and wiles ac
complished her ruin. As usual the father
Was the last one to learn the truth. When
the daughter could conceal her shame no
longer she told her father her pitiful
story. The old man went to town, called
on his lawyer, made a will bequeathing
everything to his. daughter and settled
up every one of his business affairs. Then
he purchased a shotgun, loaded both bar
rels to the muzzle, and meeting his
daughter's betrayer on the street literal
ly blew his head from his shoulders.
Then the old man went out to: his farm
and awaited the coming of the sheriff. A
coroner's jury sat upon the body of the
slain man and rendered a verdict of
"death by visitation of providence." The
grand jury then in session returned aii
indictment against the old farmer and
the sheriff went to the farm home, took
supper with the lonely old man and re
turned next morning with the warrant
endorsed, "Not served; party not found."
And that was the end of the case. Every
body believed that the slain man needed
killing and justified the man who did the
deed. There are those who believe that
old man Deitz was justified in killing
that deputy marshal. Will Maupin's
Weekly is one of them.
The ideal government is the absolute
monarchy given the perfect monarch.
But perfection is not to be expected of
any man, hence the socialistic troubles
in Beatrice, where a socialist mayor, less
than a month in office, is in bad with his
socialistic comrades. Before entering
the campaign he signed a resignation
with a blank date and gave it to the so
cialist committee. Not being perfect he
failed to satisfy all his socialist com
rades, or even a majority of them, so his
withdrawal from office is likely to be de-