"To the honorable the Supreme Court of Missouri: Come now the said Michael Haughey, Aug. Bensieck, M. J. Cullen, Arthur Donnelly, C. M. Herman, F. F. Herold, J. D. Marshall, and Wm. F. Mulhall, and give the court to understand and be informed that all of said relators are, and were at all times hereinafter stated, citizens of the state of Missouri, and residents of the said city of St. Louis, and engaged, either as individuals or as members of firms or corporations, in the livery business in said city; and that said E. S. Garver, Ford A. Allen, and Thomas M. Jenkins claim that, by appointment of the Governor of the state of Missouri, they constitute, and did constitute at all times hereinafter stated, the Missouri State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, attempted to be created by S. B. 112 of the Laws of Missouri 1901, page 195, approved March 7, 1901, entitled `Labor—Board of Mediation and Arbitration. An act to repeal article II, chapter 121, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri
1899, and to create a State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, for the settlement of differences between employers and employés, and to define the powers and duties of said board, with an emergency clause,' as amended by H. B. 505, Laws of Missouri 1903, p. 218, approved March 23, 1903, entitled `Labor—Mediation and Arbitration. An act to repeal section 5 of an act entitled "An act to create a State Board of Mediation and Arbitration," approved March 7, 1901, and to enact three new sections in lieu thereof'—and, as said board, assumed jurisdiction, as hereinafter stated; and that said H. F. Childers claims and claimed to be the secretary of said board, by virtue of the appointment of said board, at all times hereinafter stated. That the Honorable O'Neil Ryan is, and was at all times hereinafter stated, a judge of the circuit court of the said city of St. Louis, sitting in room 4 of said circuit court, and, as such, assumed jurisdiction, as hereinafter stated. That on December 23, 1903, two pretended subpœnas, both purporting to be signed by said E. S. Garver, as chairman of said board, and by said H. F. Childers, as secretary of said board, one of which was addressed to said Michael Haughey, J. D. Marshall, Aug. Bensieck, and Arthur Donnelly, and the other of which to said Wm. F. Mulhall, F. F. Herold, C. M. Herman, and M. J. Cullen, were issued and placed in the hands of the sheriff of the city of St. Louis, by which said subpœnas all of said relators were commanded to appear before said board, in the `Court of Appeals room at courthouse in county and state aforesaid,' on December 29, 1903, at 10 a. m., `then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain inquiry now being made by said board concerning a threatened strike or lockout of employés of St. Louis Liverymen's Association.' That, prior to the issuance of said pretended subpœnas, said board had made no effort whatever, as required by section 5 of said alleged act, as amended, to place itself in communication with `the employés of the St. Louis Liverymen's Association' and said association, or with the employés of any liverymen in said city, and said liverymen, for the purpose of endeavoring `by mediation to effect a settlement' between them.
"That the return on the first of said subpœnas is as follows: `Return. I hereby certify that I served the within subpœna in the city of St. Louis on the 26th day of December, 1903, by reading the same to the within-named Michael Haughey, J. D. Marshall, Arthur Donnelly, and Aug. Bensieck. Joseph F. Dickmann, Sheriff. Bogy, Noonan and Romansky.' That the return on the second of said subpœnas is as follows: `Return. I hereby certify that I served the within subpœna, in the city of St. Louis, on the 14th day of December, 1903, by reading the same to the within-named Wm. F. Mulhall, F. F. Herold, M. J. Cullen, on December 26, and C. M. Herman on December 26. Joseph F. Dickmann, Sheriff. C. N. Winke Phelan.' That said returns are null and void on their face. That as to Aug. Bensieck the only attempt at service was for some one unknown to said Bensieck to state over the telephone that he was reading to him a paper, which he never saw, and which he has no means of identifying. That certified copies of both said subpœnas and the returns thereon, and of the order for the attachment indorsed on one of them, as hereinafter stated, are hereto attached, and marked `Exhibits A and B.' That on December 29, 1903, said relators are informed and believe that said board was not in session, because of the absence of said secretary. That on December 30, 1903, said relators appeared before said board, by their attorney, for the sole purpose of insisting that they had not been regularly summoned, and could not be compelled to testify, and that said board had no jurisdiction in the premises. That on December 30, 1903, said board applied to the Honorable James R. Kinealy, a judge of said circuit court, to issue an attachment against said Haughey, Marshall, Bensieck, and Donnelly, and that said judge attempted to order said attachment to issue, as shown by his order indorsed on the certified copy of said pretended subpœna, hereto attached, and marked `Exhibit A'; said order being as follows: `December 30, 1903. Let attachments issue for above witnesses, returnable Dec. 31, at 2 p. m. J. R. K.' That thereupon a pretended joint attachment was issued against all of said relators, commanding them, and each of them, to appear before said board, `in the room of the Court of Appeals, in the courthouse in the city of St. Louis, on the 31st day of December, 1903, at 2 o'clock p. m., then and there to testify and the truth to say in a certain inquiry now being made by said board concerning a threatened strike or lockout of the employés of the St. Louis Liverymen's Association,' all of which will more fully appear from a certified copy of said pretended attachment, and the return thereon, hereto attached, and marked `Exhibit C.' That on December 31, 1903, said relators, in accordance with the terms of said pretended attachment, were brought before said board at the time specified therein by said sheriff, and thereupon said relators filed with said board, through their attorney, a paper, a certified copy of which is hereto attached, marked `Exhibit D,' in which they stated that they were only present in response to said subpœnas and the attachment thereon, and expressly disclaimed that there was any existing controversy between their employés and themselves, and expressly disclaimed that they were present for the purpose of submitting any matter to arbitration, and further stated that none of them represented the so-called St. Louis Liverymen's Association, the alleged trouble between which and its employés was proposed to be investigated by the said board. That all of said facts
set out in said paper were and are still true. That said relators announced through their said attorney to said board that they were not unwilling to testify as to any strictly relevant and pertinent matters relating to said proposed investigation, provided all their legal and constitutional rights were preserved. That said board then announced that it would proceed in the matter. That thereupon one Charles Summers, the attorney for Carriage Drivers' Local Unions, Nos. 405 and 526, announced that his said clients were ready to submit said matter to the arbitration of said board, which said board accepted said matter as submitted by said unions. That said attorney stated that the subject-matter of dispute arose out of a proposed contract between Carriage Drivers' Local Unions, Nos. 405 and 526, and the Liverymen of St. Louis and Vicinity, to take effect January 1, 1904, and continue until January 1, 1906, which said contract had been proposed by said local unions. That thereupon he filed with said board said proposed contract, a copy of which is attached hereto, and marked `Exhibit E,' stating that he did so to show the subject-matter of the alleged controversy, which facts also appear from said secretary's certificate thereon. That...
