The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1913-05-06
JAIL SENTENCES
OF LABOR MEN
ARE REDUCED
DISTRICT COURT OF AP-
PEALS HOLD SENTENCES
OF MEN EXCESSIVE.
Gompers' Is Reduced from One
Year to Thirty Days-Mor-
rison and Mitchell Fined.

WASHINGTON. May 5.-Contempt
OF court judgments against Samuel
Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank
Morrison. the labor leaders for their
violation OF courts Injunction in
the noted Bucks Stove d Range Com
pany case were affirmed to-day by the
district court OF appeals but the Jail
sentences imposed were held TO have
been too severe. so the court reduced
Gompers' sentence from one year TO
thirty days and decreed that Mitcnell
and Morrison should merely he fined
$500 each. The lower court SEN
fenced Mitchell TO nine months and
Morrison TO six. The supreme court
of the United States undoubtedly will
be asked 10 again review the decision.
Unlike previous decisions in this
case, which have been unanimously
against the labor leaders. the court of
appeals was divided. Chief Justice
Sheppard dissented. held that the
whole decision should be reversed:
that contempt Of n federal court was
criminal offense and that the statute
OF limitations had run in the case
Justice Van ord who concurred in
the majority opinion held that the re-
fusal OF Mitchell to assure the lower
court OF his intention 10 obey the man
date OF inferior courts in the future
was important in measuring the in
tent and temper OF the respondents" ="
with that the dissenting chief justice
disagreed. saying in his opinion.
Is Natural Conduct.
81 am unable TO see how the refusal
10 apologize for an act. the commits
D 81 g.N snsln Lob
MED shows a reprehensible intent or
temper. On the contrary, IL srems
10 me the natural conduct OF "A self
respecting man. Having sworn that
he neither disobeycd nor intended TO
disobey the mandate OF the court. a
confession that he had done so. would
/ he solemn admission of the commits
/ sion Of wilful perjury.
The majority decision was largely
/ devoted 10 setting out why the orig
/ inal sentences were held unreasonable.
I In part II was held
To permit respondents 20 escape
( punishment. would be travcstv up.
on justice. bur Wo ihink that the pen.
b atty imposed Is 50 unreasonable as 10
l demand modification
The differences which uocehhit.
/ aied the injunction have been settled
/ ne sole purpose of punishment. there.
/ Tore. u to give reasonable assurance
, that respondents viii In the future
! respect the authority of tho courts
: While the injunction vas issued 20
restrain The most subtle and far.reach.
I Ing conspiracy 10 BOYCOTT that has
come TO our attention. the bo, colt has
[ ceased and the necessity for fhe in.
junction no longer existed at the time
! this case was tried below
Penalties Too Severe
penalty. therefore. which would
have been iustifable 10 prevent fur.
Their defiance ~ tho order ~ tho
court. bur for th" settlement. would
now bo needless and excessive Had
the court below imposed penalties not
greatly in excess OF those which We
now deem adequate. We would not feel
justified In holding 'hat there had
been an abuse ~ discretion Since
however. 90" penalties imposed arc
80 unrra -Onahiy excessive. and No are
called upon ~ modify the judgments.
We prefer 20 err F ~ all. on tho side
Of moderation.
40 ono. however. ran read This rec
ord without being convinced that ras.
pnnf"nt Gomp"rs has been tho chiei
factor in This contempt honco. qe
vercr punt hmeuf De- merifed In bia
cas-" than in rho case of Tho other
re-pOudeuf-f