OCR Text |
Show INTERPRETING THE LAW. That there shall be no claim of suppression sup-pression of free discussion on the part of Tho Tribune, wo print in another column a communication from Mr. A-E. A-E. Mullon on tho sentences of tho court imposed upou Messrs. Gompers, Mitchell and Morrison. With respect to the snoora in tho article as to the court and its dignity, of course, the3 do not count for anything in a discussion of this kind. Neither docs tho taunt count for an3'thing which would implj' that Judge Wright was carrying out eomo underhand under-hand or mean personal motivo in place of enforcing tho law. Tho main stress of Mr. Mullen's communication com-munication is addrcsred to tho point of tho freedom of tho citizen under tho law to speak, to write, and to publish. A fair consideration of this proposition, howover. always shows that this right is subject to tho control of tho law; and this control of the law can onlj eomo into effect through decisions of tho courts. It is impossible to allow tho proposition that ovcry man must bo a law unto himself and that ovor3 ono shall intepret his own rights to suit himself. Evcr3- individual asserting his own rights must assert them subject to the law and in view of tho liko rights of others. No ono has a right to inflict in-flict wanton, personal violence upon another. an-other. 7o one has a right to slander another, an-other, or to push abuso of him to extreme. ex-treme. No one has a right to invade another's business to its injury or destruction, de-struction, as long as that is a lawful business property conducted; and even if it ia not so, it can onty- be invaded or deslro3cd by due process of law. Tho position is not tenable that thero can bo attacks on the personal property of another, unrestrained by any legal .limitations or restrictions. Neither can tho position bo maintained that even ono must "bo tho judgo for himself as to what acts he will commit com-mit or what words ho will utter. There must bo an .ultimate source of determination deter-mination as to what extent tho citizon is privileged in pursuing his personal rights and animosities, especially when thoso personal rights of his conflict with tho rights of others. As no man is mado tho ultimato arbiter of his own rights, but all, under the regulation of tho law, as interpreted b3 tho courts; so no one is privileged to encroach upon the rights of another, either in act or in speech. And since there must be an ultimate judgo of how far each one can go without infringing upon the legal rights of another, the courts of tho land havo been established as such final au-thorit3 au-thorit3 lo determino all such matters. But; when tho Court has determined these matters, is tho aggressor still privileged to defy the determination of the court and disregard tho limitations limita-tions set down 7 If the aggressor is at liberty lib-erty to disregard tho order of the court and proceed as if no such order had been issued, claiming the right to determine deter-mine tho law and his own conduct in the premises for himself, then wo havo arrived at a stato of auarch3 and nil authorit3 is set aside. This is an impossible im-possible conclusion, and therefore it is wrong. Tho only alternative is to concede con-cede tho right of the courts as established estab-lished to determino the question where thc3 have tho rightful jurisdiction; and whether an one likes it or not, the fact, remains that suchv jurisdiction is in the courts. The jurisdiction in this caso is not. denied. There was, therefore, there-fore, nothing left for tho eourt to do but to enforce its order with the puua-tive puua-tive corollary. It is true, however, that the right of appeal is still iu reserve, and this right Messrs. Gompers. Mitchell, and Morrison will avail themselves of. Iu fact, it is already stated that they have done so. and that the. appeal is in process. pro-cess. Tho whole matter, therefore, is still in tho hands of the courts. When the United States Supremo Court, speaks tho final word on this, it will be the duty of every citizen, not onty to ob03 as a matter of action, but to agree as a matter of opinion and of conscience. The one who will not do this is not a good citizen; because when the ultimato source of appeal in this county has been exhausted, there is nothing further to do. So far as an3 specific action in the case nt bar is concerned, the case is then closed and there is nothing further fur-ther to determine; tho Supreme Court's finding is the law. Tho position of the President in refusing re-fusing to interfere at this stage of tho proceedings is based on this, samo iden. The courts still have jurisdiction of tho 'case, and thoro is still a hearing for the defendants. If upon the final hearing tho Supreme Court sustains Judge Wright and if the President of the United Uni-ted States, who will probabty be Mr. Taft, sees then sufficient reason to re-' liovo the. defendants from the penalties imposed b3 the court, ho will no doubt do so. But until tho legal remedies of the defendants de-fendants aro exhausted, an appeal to I the President to intervene is distinctty I out of ord or, precisely as President Roosevelt has declared. |