The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1913-05-10
egMPERS MUST SERVE TERM.
COURT OF APPEALS AFTTRNS
JUDGMENT OF LOWER COURT
IN FAMOUS BUCK STOVE
AND RANGE CASE.
Samuel Gompers Must Serve Sem
tcncc of Thirty Days and Morrison
and Mitchell Must Pay Fines of
$500.

Washington, May 5.-Contempt OF
court judgments against Samuel
Gompers. John Mitchell and Frank
Morrison for their violation of q
courts Judgment in the noted Buck
stovo 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 reauced Gompers sentence
from one year to so days and de-
creed that Mitchell and Morrison
should merely be fined $500. The
lower court sentenced Mitchell to nine
months and Morrison to six. The
supreme court OF the United States
undoubtedly will be asked 70 again
review the decision.
Unlike previous decisions In this
case which have been unanimous
against the labor leaders. the court
OF appeals was divided. Chief Jus
tice sheppard dissented. held that
the whole decision should be re-
versed; that contempt OF a federal
court was n criminal offense and that
tho statute OF limitations had run
I'm the case.
Justice Van orsdel. who concurred
I'm the majority opinion. held that the
refusal Of Mitchell To assure the lower
court OF his intention to obey the
mandate OF inferior courts In the fu-
ture was important in measuring the
intent and temper OF the respond
ents."
With that the dissenting chief jus
tice disagreed. saying In his opinion:
II am unable to see how the re-
fusal to apologize for an act, the
commission OF which has been ex-
pressly denied. shows reprehensive
intent OF temper. On the contrary,
IL seems To me the natural conduct
OF a self-respecting man. Having
sworn that he neither dIsobeyed nor
intended to disobey the mandate of
the court, a confession that he had
done so would be a solemn admission
OF the commission OF vilfui perjury"
The majority decision was largely
devoted To setting out why the orig
inai sentences were held unreason-
able. In part II was held:
TO permit tho respondents to es-
cape punishment would be n travesty
upon justice. but we think that the
penalty imposed Is SO unreasonable
as to demand modification.
The differences which necessitated
the Injunction have been settled. The
sole purpose of punishment, there
fore. Is to give reasonable assurance
that respondents will in the future
respect the authority OF tho courts
While the injunction was issued to
restrain the most subtle and far
reaching. conspiracy to boycott that
has come to our attention. the boy
cott has ceased and the necessity for
the injunction no longer existed at
the time this case was tried below.
"A penalty. therefore. which would
have been justlhable to prevent Eur
ther defiance OF the order of the
court. but for the settlement. would
now bo needless and excessive. Had
tho court below imposed penalties
not greatly In excess OF those which
We now deem adequate we would not
feel justified in holding that there
had been an abuse OF discretion.
Since. however. the penalties imposed
are so unreasonably excessive and we
are called upon to modify the jude-
ments. we prefer to err. II at all, on
the side OF moderation.
mo one. however. can read this
record without being convinced that
respondent Gompers has been the
chief factor in this contempt: hence
N heavier punishment is merited IN
his case than In the case OF the other
respondents"