The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1913-05-09
THIRTY DAYS
FOR COMPERS
Fine Of $500 Each Imposed
Upon Morrison and Mitchell
FORMER SENTENCE EXCESSIVE
Decision of Court of Appeals In Con-
tempt Case Growing Out of Fed
GRAFTON of Labor's Contest With
Bucks Company-Defendants Had
Won Contention in Supreme Court

Bucks ompany-Defendants Had
Won Contention in Supreme Court
Washington, May 6.-SustaininS
the contempt charges against Ameri-
can Federation of Labor leaders, the
district court of appeals held that
President Gompers should serve thirty
days in Jail, and that Vice President
Mitchell and Secretary Morrison
should pay $500 fines.
This is the second time that Com
pers, Mitchell and Morrison have
been adjudged guilty of contempt of
Justice Wright of the district supreme
court, in the long standing litigation
between the Federation of Labor and
the Bucks Stove and Range company.
Wright held that the labor leaders had
violated his injunction restraining
them from printing in the 1--WE Don't
Patronize" list in the official organ of
the Federation the name of the
Bucks company.
eedefendants carried their case to
the supreme court of the United
States, which decided in their favor
but held that renewed contempt pro-
ceedings might be prosecuted by
Wright under certain conditions. The
judge shortly afterwards appointed a
committee of prosecutors, who
formulated renewed contempt charges
and pressed them in court.
Tho Rrct coDtanooc iponOCad
Wright were a year, nine months and
six months, respectively, on Com
pers, Mitchell and Morrison. Justice
Van Orsdel of the court of appeals
held these sentences unduly excess
sive. In modifying them, he pre-
scribed jail for only Gompers, order
ing the labor leader to be confined for
thirty days in Jail. Associate Justice |
Robb concurred in Van Orsdel's opin-
ion, but Chief Justice Shepard dis
scented, holding that the whole pro-
ceedings should be reversed.
Had the court below imposed pen
alties 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 discre-
ton" Van Orsdel said in his opinion.
mo one, however, can read this
record without being convinced that
the respondent, Gompers, has been
the chief factor in this contempt, 4
hence a severer punishment is merit
ed in his case than in the case of the
other respondents.
"Since the only error in the record
relates TO the excessive punishment
imposed, justice requires, and it is
so ordered, that the judgment be re-
versed and the cause remanded with
instructions to the court below to en-
ter orders in proper form adjudging
the respondents, Samuel Gompers,
John Mitchell and Frank Morrison,
guilty of contempt of court"
Chief Justice Shepard held that the
contempt charged is IAN Of
fence against the United States" and
is therefore subject to the bar of the
statute of limitations. On his con-
tention he urged reversal of the en- {
tire judgment of the lower court. {
The majority opinion did not spare
although it yelled its meaning
in legal terms concerning the undue
of Wright's sentences.
However" the opinion continued,
to permit respondents to escape pun
shment would be a travesty upon
Justice. But we think that inasmuch {
Is the extreme punishment such as S
could be imposed against respondents I
n a criminal prosecution :
would be limited to a fine of $500 or q
for three months, or
10Th, the penalty imposed is so I'M
as TO demand modifca-