Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1913-05-06
REDUCE PENALTY
LABOR LEADERS
APPEAL COURT AMELIOR hTES
SENTENCES IN GOMPERS
CONTEMPT CASE.
COMPERS TO serve 80 DAYS
Others Draw $500 Fines. But Case
VIII Probably go 10 United
States Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON, May 5.-Contempt
OF court judgments against Samuel
Gompers, Jno. Mitchell and Frank
Morrison for their violation of court
Injunction in the noted Bucks StaVe
and Range case, were affirmed today
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
Mitchell and Morrison should merely
be fined $500 each. The lower court
sentenced Mitchell to nine months and
Morrison to six The supreme court
of the United States undoubtedly will
be asked to again review the decision.
Unlike decisions in this case, which
have been unanimously against the
labor leaders, the court of appeals
was divided Chief Justice Shep-
pard dissented. held that the whole
decision should be reversed; that con-
tempt of a federal court was a Grim
inal offense and that the statute Of
limitations had run in the case.
Chief Justice Disagreed.
Justice NanOrsdell who concurred
in the majority opinion, held that the
refusal of Mitchell to assure the low
er court of his intention to obey the
mandate of tle inferior courts In the
future was important In measuring
the intent and temper of the respond
ents" With that, the dissenting chlef
justice disagreed saying in his opinion:
"I am unable to see how the refusal
to apologize for an act. the commits
sion has been expressly denied, SHOWS
n reprehensible intent or temper. on
the contrary, ii seems to me the nat
ural conduct of a self respecting man.
Having sworn that he neither disobey-
ed nor intended to disobey the man
date of the court. a confession that
he had done so would be solemn
admission of the commission of will
full perjury"
The majority decision was largely
devoted to seeking out why the origi-
nal sentences were held unreasonable
In part it was held:
ITO permit respondents to escape
punishments would be travesty upon
imposed is so unreasonable as to de-
mand notification
Must Show Authority.
"The differences which necessitated
the Injunction have been settled. The
sole purpose of punishment. therefore
IS to give reasonable assurance that
respondents will in the fture respect
the authority Of the courts. While
the Injunction was issued to restrain
the most subtle and far reaching con-
spiracy to boycott that has come to
our attention, the boycott has ceased
and the necessity for the Injunction no
longer passed at the item this case
was tried below"
"a penalty therefore which would
have been justifiable to prevent fur
ther defiance Of the order of the court,
hut for the settlement would now be
needless and excessive Had the court
below imposed penalties not greatly
in excess of those which we now
deem adequate we would not feel JUS
titled in holding that there had been
an abuse of discretion. Since how
ever, tn penalties imposed are so un-
reasonably excessive and We are called
upon to modify the judgements, we
prefer to err, if at all, on the side
of moderation"
"No one, however, can read this
record without being convincved that
respondent Gompers has been the
chief factor in this contempt; hence.
a severer punishment has meen emted
I'm his case than in the cases of the
nther resnonGents" "