Norwich bulletin., 1913-05-06
The Penalties
 Are Excessive.
COURT MoDlFlEs SENTENCES or.
 A. F. OF L. OFFICIALS.
A MONTH FOR GOMPERS
Original Sentence Called for Year's lmprisonment = Only Fines in the Cases of Morrison and Mitchell.

Washington, May 5.--Contempt of court judgments against Samuel Com pers. John Mitchell and Frank Nor risOn, the labor leaders, for their vio- lation Of courts injunction in the. noted Bucks Stove 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 Com pers' sentence from one year to thirty days and decreed that Mitchell and Morrison should merely be fined $500 each. The lower court sentenced Nit chen to nine months and Morrison to six. The Supreme court of the United States undoubtedly will be asked to review the. decision again
 The Court Divided.
 Unlike previous decisions in this case which have been unanimously against the labor officials, the court of appeals was divided. Chief Justice Shepherd dfssented. held that the whole decision should be reversed; that contempt of a federal court was criminal offense and that the statute Of Limitations had run in the case.
 Justice Van Orsdel, who concurred in the majority opinion, held that the refusal of Mitchell to assure the lower court of his intention to obey the man date of inferior courts in the future was important in measuring the in tent and temper of the respondents" Natural Conduct of Self Respecting
 Man.
 With that the dissenting chief jus tice disagreed. saying in his opinion: T am unable to see how the refu sal to apologize for an act. the commission of which has been expressly denied, shows a reprehensibTe intent or tenn per. On the contrary, it seems to me the natural conduct of eIf-respect- n F0 Y 1<z neither disobeyed nor intended to dis obey the mandate of the court, a con- fession that he had done so would be a solemn admission of the commission of & wiiful perjury"
 The majority decision was largely devoted to setting out why the orig .inal sentences were held unreasonable. In part 1t was held: Penalty Imposed Was Unreasonable,
 TO permit respondents to eseape punishment would be traxesty on justice, but we think that the penalty imposed is so unreasonable as to de- mand modification.
 '@The differences which ne6essitated the injunction have been settled The sole purpose of punishment, therefore. is to give reasonable assurance that respondents will in the future respect the authority of the courts. While the injunction was issued to restrain LA4C AA4OcL 5nDLAC 61IFA 4di 1SdLH1IAS G0u- spiracy to boycott that has come to our attention, the boycott has ceased and the necessity for the injunction no longer existed at the time this case was tried below.
 Gonapers Chief Factor fin Contempt.
 "A penalty. therefore, which would have been tllstlfabae to prevent fur ther defiance of the order of the court but 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 justified in holding that there had been an abuse of discretion. Since, howeye CT, the penalties imposed are SC unFeason- ably excessive and we are ealIad upon to modify the Judgments. we prefer to err, if at all. on tile side of moder- atiof.
 No one, however, can read this rec- ord without being convinced that re- spondent Gompers has been the chief factor in this contempt; hence, a se- verer punishment is merited in his case than in the cases of the other re- spondents.''