u : l, JMLA U I h U
7 . - ' ' . ' :
VTOL. 5 ' , LINCOLN, NEBRASKA, JANUARY 2, 1309 NO.
IS QiViPERS IN CONTE
'f WILLIAM J. BRYAN, IN THE COflMONER
The fining of Gonipers, Mihell and Morrison by Justice Wright,
K likely to focus attention upon the
ping else could do. 1 his is really a
Corporation and its employes, and the
m
n
MPT?
of the District of Columbia,
subject of injunctions as not!
controversy between a large
writ of injunction is being usji to assist the corporation in its contest
against those who were em,
cause and to obtain an ad
oyed by it. In order to further its
tage against the workmen, the stove
company secured the injuiftn restraining tne American i eaera-
tionist (the official organ d'fthe Federation of Labor) or any other
printed or written newspePer magazine, circular, letter other
document or instrument whatever," from referring to the complain
ant, its business or its bus'iess product in the "we don't patronize"
or "unfair" list. etc.
Mr. Gompers Mr. & tchell aud Mr. Morrison were -accused of
violating this injunction and sentenced to imprisonment; the case
is being appealed to tfcj higher courts, and full discussion of the
principles involved will "e delayed until final decision. However,
as the corporation paper8 re loudly condemning Mr. Gompers and
his associates and insisting that they ought to have obeyed the re
straining order whether constitutional or not, it is worth while
to present the side of tlie defendants. The restraining order wasj
believed by Mr. Gompei's Mitchell and Mr. Morrison to be an
unconstitutional interference with the right of free speech, and a
court decree which vioLltes Jne constitution is null and void just as
an unconstitutional sXftute is null and void. Now, how could
the unconstitutionality of this decree be tested? Two ways were
open. The defendants could have obeyed it and contested it at the
time of the hearing, taS an appeal in case of an adverse decision,
but this course would have left the stove company in possession of
the field it would hpve given it the advantage pending thelitiga-
tion. and with this advantage, the corporation,.mght have won its
fight against the emplOforejvfijialdeeton could have been ob
tained. It might have dismissed itsTstflt, after winning its contest,
and left the defendants without even the advantage of a final deci
sion sustaining their position.
There was another method of testing the injunction, and this
they adopted. They condemned the decree as unconstitutional and
protested against such . . interference with the freedom of speech
and the freedom of the press. They denied doing the things speci
fically enjoined, but th 't question is not so material as the question
whether they had a right to test the constitutionality of the order by
disobedience of it. Let the case be stated as favorably as possible for
the stove company; let it be assumed that Mr. Gompers, Mr. Mit
chell and Mr. Morrison deliberately disobeyed the order issued by
the judge on the ground that it violated the constitutional guarantees
which surround freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Are
these men to be condemned for thus testing the question by dis
obedience? Judge Parker, their counsel, calls attention to the effort that is
being made to invest a judicial decree with a sacredness superior to
that which surrounds a statute ,and he is perfectly right in insisting
that a statute enacted by a legislature and approved by an execu
tive officer is entitled to as much respect as an order issued by a
judge. And yet nearly every statute which is passed is tested
by disobedience, and where the statute is directed against a corpor
ation, it is expected that it will be tested by disobedience. The
newspapers which hold the labor leaders up to public condemnation
because they violated a judicial order think it entirely proper that
the great corporation shall await a judicial construction of a statute
before obeying it. It is never suggested by such papers that a cor
poration is doing anything disreputable when it disputes the con
stitutionality of a law and violates the law in-order to secure a de
cision upon that point. Why should the labor leaders be treated
more harshly than the heads of corporations?
Not only do the managers of corporations test the constitution
ality of law by disobedience, but public officials constantly do so. A
case in point is recalled. About twenty-one years ago the city
council of Lincoln, Nebraska, was investigating charges made against
a police magistrate The attorneys for the police magistrate se
cured a temporary suspension of the investigation and before the in
vestigation was resumed, secured from Judge Brewer, then on the
circuit bench of the United States, an order restraining the city
council from the removal of the offending official. The restraining
order was made returnable at a date about two months away. If
the council had followed the advice now being given to Mr. Gom
pers and his associates it wrould have awaited for two months and
th'eft? i. be temporary injunction had been made permanent, it
would have taken an appeal, and possibly by the time the magis
trate's term expired, or . a few - years afterwards, a final decision
could have been secured. But the mayor and council, believkig that
Judge Brewer was interfering with the constitutional right ol the
city authorities, proceeded to violate the injunction by continuing
the investigation and removing the official. They were cited before
Judge Brevier for contempt, and because of the prominence of the
defendants, a fine of $600 wras imposed on all but two of them who,
for special reasons, were fined only $50. The defendants, with one
exception, refused to pay the fines and went to jail, while theii
attorney presented the matter to the United States supreme court.
The court decided that Judge Brewrer exceeded his authority in issu
ing the order; that the order was void; and that the defendants
acted within their rights in refusing to obey the order. The de
fendants wre, therefore, discharged. The one councilman who, be
cause of ill health paid his fine rather than go to jail, recently re
covered the fine by an act of congress. .
This case is reported in the United States Court Reviews, "ex
parte: in the matter of Andrew J. Sawyer, et al. petitioners;'' vol
ume 124, page 200. . .
There are many other cases that might be cited, but here is one
involving a constitutional right. If public officials are' justified in
deliberately violating an injunction in order to test its constitution
ality, why should Mr. Gompers, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Morrison be
condemned for resorting to the same method of testing the consti
tutionality of a restraining order which, in the opinion of the de
fendants, violated the constitutional rights of themselves and the
large body of men for whom they acted? -
If the supreme court sustains the position taken by Justice
Wright, it becomes the law of the land until the decision of the
court is reversed or until congress enforces the guarantees of the
constitution. .
This case also shows the imperative necessity for legislation
which will give trial by jury in cases of indirect contempt.
Is it not time for a congressional limitation of the power of the
court in matters of temporary injunction? Is it not time for legis
lation along the lines of the democratic platform ? It seems impos
sible to arouse the public to the need of a reform until someone has
suffered. Every step in advance has behind it the suffering of some
for others. Mr. Gompers, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. , Morrison . are to
be commended rather than condemned that they are willing to suf-
"- -"-7 vvii uu.vim6i, t,UlsV lau OCUUXt? liU LUC11 Klilll W I si. Ill I It
protection from the increasing injustice which comes from the
niT.rarV lSSVianCA nr lHllinrtintl "ha nraciHant haa s huioilir nn mto
ana ne nas warned congress tnat these abuses, if not corrected wil
IaoI ........ T . - . i L 1 ' . " i . P
' " . . -v' - iviwii .tieamou c V CU IUO tllltd LC USK 1 1 lilt' 1 1 1 1 W H IN 1 1
the equity court: The republican national platform, while seemind
to admit the need ot remedial legislation, employed deceptive langj
uage, and the adoption of that platform was hailing during the cam'
paign as a triumpn for the corporation, in their contest against thei
employes. It will-.be remembered , that Mr. Van Cleve, who
of the stove company s prosecution of labor leaders, is?
paign documents appealing to the business men to-v
publican ticket because the republican convention rejected t
titinno m 4-' flin UIw.h ,-. ....... . ..... ' T. 111 1. - 1 i- J i P
Kiuiwiao ui. tne iouui uigauiiaLiuu&, xi wni ue uut poetic justice u
the prosecution which Mr. Van Cleve has started results in the
w ,7 & j. o i ia. i 1 x i y lie UUULiSCO, CIXIU. V CI; LIliM IS 11 U L UJU1V Hie XietL-
ural result, but it is a result to be desired.
HOW. JUDGE SENTENCED THE FEDERATION LEADERS
Justice Daniel Wright of the supreme court of the District of
Columbia has sentenced President Gompers, Vice President Mitchell
and Secretary Morrison of the American Federation of Labor, to
serve jail sentences for contempt of court, Gompers for one year,
Mitchell for nine months and Morrison for six months. The con
tempt consisted of refusing to obey the court's order not to print or
otherwise convey to organized labor the information that the Buck
Stove and Range Co., is unfair to organized labor. Believing that
the court's order was a violation of the right of free speech and a
free press, the Federation officials ignored it. Had they been the
head magnates of of a big corporation, like the beef trust or the
lumber trust, the court would not have been able to find the re
sponsible parties, but being mere workingmen it was easy to locate
them and mete out punishment. In his decision Justice Wright uses
language that clearly shows his hatred of organized labor. He
ould not have been more emphatic in his denunciation had he been
the prosecutor in a criminal case instead of the judge in a quasi
criminal case.
The history of this now famous case is interesting. In 1906 the
union metal polishers and buffers in the employ of the Buck Stove
and Range Co., at St. Louis struck to enforce the eight hour day.
Rather they struck to maintain the eight hour day. The com
pany, early in the year, on the specious plea that it would rather
shorten hours than lay off men, reduced the hours from nine to
eight. Later when business picked up it sought to lengthen the
hours again, but the metal polishers and buffers insisted that the
company be consistent and put on more men instead of lengthening
the hours. This the company reiused to do and tne men sirucs. ine
matter was taken up through the usual Federation channels and in
due time the. Buck Stove and Range Co. ,was put in the "we do not.
tronize list" carried in the American rederatiomsi.
In September. 1907. the executive council of the American Fed-
'ation of Labor was cited to appear in court and show cause why an
junction should not issue restraining tliem irom continuing tne
unfair" notice in the American Federationist. The case came up
iring before Justice Gould, and a preliminary restraining or-
s granted on December 18, 1907. This order was made per-
nn December 27.
Julv. 1908. Gompers. Mitchell and Morrison were cited to
and show why they should not be punished tor contempt.
se dragged along for months, every postponement, save one
Sit the request of the prosecution. The case was hnally ar-
efore Justice Wright, and he decided the detendants guilty
emnt of the court. The result was a jail sentence. I tie
rs at once gave bail and have appealed the case to a higher
hia opinion Justice Wright fairly froths at the mouth in his
to denounce union labor and stand up for the dignity of the
After "iy the history of the case Justice Wright
on tlyr he Federation arid claimed that through
ajp y c oryaniy.atiuiis were xuiccu ouu
lly willing or not.
1
I
J
V
1
inj iilua
After reading several yards of stuff on the question of restraint
of trade, he opined that : ' .
"From the foregoing it ought to seem apparent to thoughtful
men that the defendants to the bill, each and all of them, have com
bined together for the purpose of: .
"1. Bringing about the breach of plaintiff's existing contracts
writh the others.
"2. Depriving plaintiff of property (the value of. the good
will of its business) without due process of law. -"3.
Restraining trade among the several states.
"4. Restraining commerce among the several states."'
He then opined some more to the effect that "
"The ultimate purpose of the defendants was unlawful, their
concerted project an offense against the law, and they were guilty of
crime."
Coming to the question of the violation of the court's injunc
tion, he said:
"That Gompers and others had in advance of the injunction de
termined to violate it, if issued, and had in advance of the injunction
counseled all members of labor unions and of the American Feder
ation of Labor and the public generally to violate it in case it should
be issued, appears from the following, which references point out also
the general plan and mutual understanding of the organizations
and their various members."
The court here read a mass of extracts from reports of pro
ceedings of conventions, of the federation reports of President Gom
pers, editorials from the columns of the American Federationist and
the labor press generally in support of his statement that there was
a predetermination to violate.
Discussing the actions of the defendants since the issuance oA
the injunction, Justice Wright said:
"Having in mind what may be in the foregoing delineation
which indicates that either of the three respondents did before the
issuance of the injunction deliberately determine to willfully violate
it, and did counsel others to do the same, let me now,Aurn to their
sayings and doings since the decision of Mr. Justice 4r0uld was for
mally announced, and the order of injunction itself put into technical
operation by the giving of the injunction bond.
"On December 17, 1907, the opinion of the court was filed
in the case; the order of injunction waseritered December 18; the
giving of the undertaking required by it was consummated on De
cember 23, and I am disposed now to look at the separate conduct
of each respondent with a view of trjeeording his individual responsi
bility in sufficient detail." i
The court, after quoting at gireat length the attitude taken by
Mr. Gompers, since the injunction was issued, his writings, inter
views and public addresses, remarked: "All of which was done, all
of which was published and all ot which was circulated in willful
disobedience and deliberate violation of the injunction and for the
purpose of inciting and accomplishing the violation generally, and in
pursuance of the original common design of himself and confeder
ates, to bring about the breach of plaintiff's existing contracts with
others; deprive plaintiff of property (the good will of its business)
without due process of law J restrain trade among the several states;
restrain commerce among the several states."
ci a ir ? i -i j ti ill ''
. . . . .i .i n M ; .. i. 1 1 1. A 4. : i i i A. i
many oj. me uocumenxs reierred to, nut aiso reierrea to tnrpresen
of Mitchell in the chair on January 25, 1908, at the annual cony
tion of the United Mine Workers of America, when j resolution was '
adopted placing the Bucks Stove & Range Co., on 'the "unfji
Continuing as to all three of the defendants,' the courtrsaid :
"In defense of the charges now at bar, neither ap6logy nor ex
tenuation is deemed fit to be embraced ; no .claim ofunmeant contu
macy is heard: persistins1 in contemntabus .violation nf th nrHori
nr ) ,i Pin . l ji io e4V n ml cnirn 1 1 , t. . rPVij4- li in i 1 C V T . ..
the constitutional guaranty of the freedom a$ the press, and (2)
fringed the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech."-
"Th ese defenses do not fill the measure of the ease ; the injunc
tion was designed to stay the genera. 'conspiracy of which the publi
cation of the 'unfair' and .'we dern't patronize' lists were but in
cidents; the injunction interferes with no legitimate right of criti
cism or comment that law ha ever sanctioned and the respondents'
intimation that it does so is "a mockery and a pretense."
In reference to the. freedom of the press, the court, declares that
the constitution nowjiere conferred the right to speak, to print or to
publish. '
"It guarantees," said he, "only that in so far as the federal
g'jfernment is concerned its congress shall not abridge it and leaves
tne subject to the regulation of the several states, where it
longs. " - . ' .; : - . --Jf
In the opinion of the court, even where a tribunal Has lallen into
error in the determination of a cause which it was invested with jur
isdiction to "hear and determine" the duty and necessity of Obed
ience remained nevertheless the same. "And," said the court, "I
plac the decision of the matter at bar distinctly on the proposition,
that were the order confessedly erroneous yet it must have been
obeyed. It is between the supremacy or law over the rabble
prostration under the feet of the disordered throng."
Here is a gem:
"It stands in the nature of things that the unlettered be most
sensible of that authority which most often shows itself in theiF
modest affairs, although a higher may exist to which their attention
is not every moment directed by some interference with them, but
to which they stand ready to adnere upon the moment that shows
them that the lesser authority was in mistake, or leading them
awrong. ... , ' ; '
"That the universal recognition, the desirability of associations
of craftsmen for the ascertainment arid "advancement of the welfare
of their kind is so retarded as to be much deplored; yet it is in the
history of man that some lesson must be unlearned; that systems
(Continued on page 5.) "