of nine justices, the majority-that is, five of them-agreed upon the decision of the unconstitutionality of the law, and four voted and expressed their views of its constitutionality, that it was not repugnant to the constitution of the United States. It is additionally interesting to know that of the five justices who declared the law unconstitutional, two of them agreed upon one line of reasoning and three on another upon which their conclusion was reached. The four justices who dissented from the majority opinion and decision, rendered three different and dissenting opinions. When the highest court of our country, the supreme court of the United States, composed of some of the very best jurists in all the country, so vitally differ, both in the majority and minority opinions and in the decision, is it not time that the people and the Congress of the United States should take this serious and important matter under consideration and remedy a most deplorable condition? Is a law passed by Congress, approved by the President of the United States, in compliance with an enlightened public sentiment, and in response to the needs of the people, to be nolens volens declared unconstitutional by a court so hopelessly divided as in the case in point, and in many other cases, which have come conspicuously to the notice of our people? Some newspapers have urged the Supreme Court to merely announce its decision in any case without any accompanying opinion or opinions, expressing the belief that the accompanying opinions of the minority or dissenting justices tend to lessen respect for the decisions of the court. opine that the supreme court will not depart from a usage established since the adoption of the constitution itself; that as Justice Moody in his dissenting opinion of the case under discussion said that "where the judgment is a judicial condemnation of an act of a co-ordinate branch of our government, it is so grave a responsibility that no member of the court can escape his own responsibility, or be justified in suppressing his own views, if unhappily they have not found expression in those of his associates." Indeed, it will be found that often, as in this very case, there are diverse opinions among those reaching the majority decision. Of course labor is not and will not become disheartened by the decision, declaring the Employers' Liability Law unconstitutional. Already efforts have been made to meet and overcome the court's adverse decision by introducing a new bill in Congress. This course will be followed by labor in all instances in which the vital interests of the working people of our country are concerned. If perchance any other law may be declared unconstitutional affecting the rights and interests of the common people, we shall still press home upon our fellow-citizens and Congress the need of the times and hope to find its expression into enacted law. The constitution of the United States was framed before the power of steam and electricity was dreamed of; before a steam vessel or railroad or telegraph was known; long before the day of the machinery operated by steam or electricity was in vogue; long before concentration of industry and the introduction of the factory system of labor. All these new conditions can not be stopped and must not be hampered in their fullest develop ment and fruition. There are many old conceptions of the law and of the common law which must conform to the era, to the Zeitgeist. The toilers have the right to insist that their lives, their conditions and their interests be given further and better consideration, and protection by expressed statute law, and that the broadest and most liberal interpretation be placed upon such laws; that the courts created by Congress shall be deprived of their power to declare unconstitutional the laws enacted by their creator, the Congress of the United States, and that the United States Supreme Court itself should not declare unconstitutional a law enacted by two co-ordinate branches of the government of the United States, the Congress and the President, unless there be unanimity of opinion. Especially are they justified in holding that a law shall not be annuled and shall not be held to be repugnant to the constitution of our country when the opinions of that highest tribunal are so diverse and hopelessly divided. This matter deserves the serious discussion and consideration of all our people, whether they be wage-earners or others. SPEAKER CANNON So "Uncle Joe" Cannon had his man Friday take up the cudgels in attempting a reply to our editorial criticism of his conduct contained in the January issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST. Perhaps Hon. Joseph G. Cannon imagines that we are unaware of the "frame-up" by his satellites by which the plate printers' committee's credulity was imposed upon and the "resolutions of thanks" tendered him. "LEST WE FORGET." Under the rules of the House, engineered by Speaker Cannon and his few congressional beneficiaries, no measure can be brought before the consideration of the House that he does not, in advance, sanction and approve. And thus any measures of real relief for the wage-workers of our country, or for that of the common people, have been stifled in committees. The committees on Labor in the 58th, 59th and now in the 60th Congress have been appointed with the one specific purpose of preventing any bona fide measure of genuine relief from being reported to the House for consideration. The Judiciary Committee of the last three Congresses have been appointed with the same intent and purpose. What about Mr. Speaker's Cannon's punishment of Congressman Pearre by refusing to reappoint that gentleman upon the House Judiciary Committee, a committee in which he rendered conspicuous and able service. in the last two Congresses? The punishment was meted out by Uncle Joe" because Mr Pearre had convictions of his own as to what constituted his duty to his fellow-citizens and particularly to his constituents. He had the temerity to introduce and stand for labor's bill limiting the abuse of the injunction process and thus defend and safeguard individual liberty and equality before the law. For a "genial" old gentleman, "Uncle Joe' Cannon is the most vindictive man of power who ever undertook to politically kill a Congressman who has convictions and conceptions of his own in regard to right and justice which a politician of the Cannon stripe can not be expected to understand or tolerate. URGENT APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL AID IN DEFENSE OF FREE PRESS AND FREE SPEECH. HEADQUARTERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, D. C., January 24, 1908. To All Organized Labor, Greeting: Justice Gould, of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, has issued an injunction against the American Federation of Labor and its officers, officially and individually. The injunction invades the liberty of the press, the liberty of speech. It enjoins the American Federation of Labor, or its officers, from printing, writing, or orally communicating the fact that the Buck's Stove and Range Company has assumed an attitude of hostility toward labor, and that organized labor has made this fact known, and asks our friends to use their influence and purchasing power with a view of bringing about an adjustment of all matters in controversy between that company and organized labor. The injunction is of the most sweeping character, and it, as well as the suit in connection therewith, must of necessity, be contested in the courts, though it reach the highest judicial tribunal of our country. In another part of this issue of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST is published an editorial under the heading: "Free Press, Free Speech, Invaded by Injunction Against A. F. of L.-A Review and Protest." editorial contains a full presentation of labor's position in regard to this injunction. The Executive Council of the American Federation of Labor has retained the services of Hon. Alton B. Parker, former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, of the state of New York, Messrs. Ralston & Siddons, and Mr. Spelling as counsel to defend the rights of labor and the more general rights of all our people involved in this injunction and suit; the rights, as we have said, of the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech. The Norfolk convention of the American Federation of Labor authorized the levying of an assessment of one cent per member of affiliated organizations for this case, and gave the Executive Council power to levy an additional assessment, if necessary. One of these assessments has been levied, but it is found to be insufficient to meet the exigencies and needs of the case. We believe that organized labor, its members, and its friends, would prefer to make voluntary contributions of financial aid rather than that additional assessments be levied. Because of the necessity to defend the fundamental rights of free speech and free press of the working people today, and which may involve the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech of all cur people in the future, we appeal to all unions and union members, and the friends of justice to contribute as promptly and as generously as they can, in order that a legal defense fund may be at the disposal of the American Federation of Labor to defend the rights of labor, and the rights of our people before the courts. Send all contributions direct to Secretary Frank Morrison, 423-425 G street, Washington, D. C., who will return receipt for same, Fraternally yours, SAMUEL GOMPERS, President. Attest: FRANK MORRISON, Secretary. JAMES DUNCAN, First Vice-President. JOHN B. LENNON, Treasurer. Executive Council, American Federation of Labor. Secretaries will please read the above at the meetings of their respective organizations and urge prompt action. Labor Press will please copy and aid. DISTRICT AND GENERAL ORGANIZERS. Number Commissioned Organizers, American Federation of Labor, 973. District No. I.—Eastern. Comprising the states of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and the Province of New Brunswick, Canada. Organizer, Stuart Reid. District No. II.-Middle. Comprising the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the Province of Quebec, Canada. Organizers, Herman Robinson, Hugh Frayne, Cal Wyatt, W. C. Hahn, John A. Flett, Jas. E. Roach, Wm. J. Boyle, Henry Berghane. District No. Ill.-Southern. Comprising the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi,and Louisiana. Organizers, James Leonard, R. L. Harper, H. L. Eichelberger. District No. IV.-Central. Comprising the states of West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Organizers, J. J. Fitzpatrick, J. D. Pierce, Edwin R. Wright, Jacob Tazelaar, Thos. H. Flynn, Herman Ross, George Schneider, Emmet T. Flood. District No. V.-Northwestern. Comprising the states of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Manitoba. Organizer, Geo. B. Howley. District No. VI.-Southwestern. Comprising the states of Missouri, Kansas, Texas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas. Organizers, Henry M. Walker, M. Grant Hamilton, W. H. Churchwell. District No. VII.-Inter-Mountain. Comprising the states of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho. Organizer, R. E. Croskey. District No. VIII.-Pacific Coast. Comprising the states of Nevada, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and the Province of British Columbia. Organizers, C. O. Young, Arthur A. Hay, Sidney H. Gray, William E. Terry. Porto Rico.-Santiago Iglesias. ORDER GRANTING INJUNCTION. In the official organ of the National Association of Manufacturers, one of the counsel for the Buck's Stove and Range Company declares that punishment for violation of the injunction issued by Justice Gould, against the American Federation of Labor, applies particularly to those within the territorial limits of the District of Columbia who violate the terms of the injunction. That those who violate the terms of the injunction in any other part of the country outside of the District of Columbia can be punished only when they thereafter come within the territorial limits of the District of Columbia. Counsel for the American Federation of Labor assure us that this construction of the court's order is accurate. T THE INJUNCTION-BUCK'S STOVE AND RANGE CO. vs. AMERICAN HIS cause coming on to be heard upon the petition of the complainant for an injunction pendente lite as prayed in the bill, and the defendant's return to the rule to show cause issued upon the said petition, having been argued by the solicitors for the respective parties, and duly considered, it is, thereupon by the court, this 18th day of December, A. D. 1907, ordered that the defendants, The American Federation of Labor, Samuel Gompers, Frank Morrison, John B. Lennon, James Duncan, John Mitchell, James O'Connell, Max Morris, Denis A. Hayes, Daniel J. Keefe, William D. Huber, Joseph F. Valentine, Rodney L. Thixton, Clinton O. Buckingham, Herman C. Poppe, Arthur J. Williams, Samuel R. Cooper, and Edward L. Hickman, their and each of their agents, servants, attorneys, confederates, and any and all persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with them or any of them be, and they hereby are, restrained and enjoined until the final decree in said cause from conspiring, agreeing or combining in any manner to restrain, obstruct or destroy the business of the complainant, or to prevent the complainant from carrying on the same without interference from them or any of them, and from interfering in any manner with the sale of the product of the complainant's facfactory or business by defendants, or by any other person, firm or corporation, and from declaring or threatening any boycott against the complainant, or its business, or the product of its factory, or against any person, firm or corporation engaged in handling or selling the said product, and from abetting, aiding or assisting in any such boycott, and from printing, issuing, publishing, or distri buting through the mails, or in any other manner any copies or copy of the AMERICAN FEDERATIONIST, or any other printed or written newspaper, magazine, circular, letter or other document or instrument whatsoever, which shall contain or in any manner refer to the name of the complainant, its business or its product in the "We Don't Patronize," or the "Unfair" list of the defendants, or any of them, their agents, servants, attorneys, confederates, or other person or persons acting in aid of or in conjunction with them or which contains any reference to the complainant, its business or product in connection with the term Unfair" or with the "We Don't Patronize" list, or with any other phrase, word or words of similar import, and from publishing or otherwise circulating, whether in writing or orally, any statement or notice of any kind or character whatsoever, calling attention of the complainant's customers, or of dealers or tradesmen, or the public, to any boycott against the complainant, its business or its product. or that the same are, or were, or have been declared to be "Unfair," or that it should not be purchased or dealt in or handled by any dealer, tradesman, or other person whomsoever, or by the public, or any representation or statement of like effect or import, for the purpose of, or tending to any injury to or interference with the complainant's business, or with the free and unrestricted sale of its product, or of coercing or inducing any dealer, person, firm, or corporation, or the public, not to purchase, use, buy, trade in, deal in, or have in possession stoves, ranges, heating apparatus, or other product of the complainant, and from threatening or intimidating any person or persons whomsoever, from buying, selling or otherwise dealing in the complainant's product, either directly, or through orders, directions or suggestions to committees, associations, officers, agents or others. for the performance of any such acts or threats as hereinabove specified, and from in any manner whatsoever impeding, obstructing, interfering with or restraining the complainant's business, trade or commerce, whether in the state of Missouri, or in other states and territories of the United States, or elsewhere wheresoever, and from soliciting, directing, aiding, assisting or abetting any person or persons, company or corporation to do or cause to be done any of the acts or things aforesaid. And it is further ordered by the court that |