Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1913-05-07
LABOR HEADS LOSE
IN Higher COURT
Sentences Reduced, But Con.
tempt is Upheld

tempt or court judgments against
Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell aud
Frank Morrison, for their violation of
a courts injunction in the noted Buck
Stove and Range case. were affirmed
today by the district court of appeals,
but the Jail sciences imposed were
held to have been too severe, so the
court reduced Gomper's 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 Unite
States undoubtedly will be asked to
again review the decision. Unlike pre-
vious decisions in this case, which
have been unanimously against the
labor leaders, the court of appeals was
divided.
Chief Justice Shepherd dissented
held that the whole decision should be
reversed; that contempt of a federal
court was a 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
mandate of inferior courts in the flu
| ture was important in measuring the
intent, and temper of the respondents. '
With that, the dissenting chief JUS
tice disagreed, saying in his opinion:
Il am unable to see how the refusal
to apologize for an act, the commits
sion of which has been expressly de-
MED, shows a reprehensible intent OF
temper. On the contrary, it SENS to
me that natural conduct of a self-re-
specting man. Having sworn that he
neither disobeyed nor intended to dis
obey the mandate of the court, a con-
fesion that he had done so would be a
solemn admission of the commission
Of wilful perjury"
The majority decision was largely
devoted to setting out why the original
sentences were held unreasonable In
part it was held:
ITO permit respondents to escape
punishment would be a travesty upon
justice, but we think that the penalty
imposed is so unreasonable as to de-
mand modification
THE differences which necessitate4
the injunction have been settled The
sole purpose of punishment, therefor,
is to give reasonable assurance that
respondents will in the future 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 ceased and
the necessity for the injunction no
longer existed at the time this case
was tried below.
"A penalty therefore, which 4
would have been justifable to pre-
vent further defiance of the order of
the court, but for the settlement,
would now be needless and excessive.
Had the court below imposed penal
tiles 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.
However, the penalties imposed are
as unreasonably excessive and we arci
called upon to modify the judgment,
we prefer to err, if 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 a |
severer punishment is merited in his
case than in the cases of the other re
spondents"
He-Great news dearest, p. @. e. r. |