The Connecticut labor news., 1924-11-08

proceeded without a jury. At the con- clusion of the hearing, the petitioners were adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay fines in various sums, and in de- fault of payment to stand committed to jail until such fines were paid. There upon the case was taken to the Cir cult Court of appeals by writ of error i; and by that court the judgments were affirmed 2o1 Fed. e4O.
 First. Is the provision of the Clay ton Act, granting a right of trial by jury constitutional? The court below held in the negative, on the ground that the power of court to vinidicate or enforce its decree in equity is inherent i; is derived from the Constitution as a part of its judicial power and that Con- gress is without constitutional authority to deprive the parties in an equity court of the right of trial by the chancellor
 If the statute now under review en- croaches upon the equity jurisdiction intended by the Constitution, grave constitutional question in respect of it's validity would be presented; and it. i therefore, becomes our duty, as this Court has frequently said, to construe it eff fairly possible so as to avoid not only the conclusion that it is unconsti- tutional but also doubts on the score" Panama Railroad Co., vs Johnson, 2o4 U. s. 375.
 l Shortly stated, the statute provides that wilful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the Dis trict of Columbia by doing any act or thing forbidden, if such act or thing be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any sta tute of the United States or law of any state in which the act is committed, shall Fbe proceeded against as in the statute provided. In all such cases the trial may be by the court, or, upon the de- mand of the accused, by a jury and such trial shall conform, as. near as may be, to the practice in criminal cases prosecuted on indictment or in forna- ton" Upon conviction the accused is to be punished ''by fine or imprison- ment, or both, the fine to be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constitut- ing the contempt, and where more than one is so damaged divided among them as the court may direct"
 The provision for trial by jury upon demand, as we shall presently show, IS mandatory; and the question to be an ] answered IS whether 1t infringes any power of the courts vested by the Con- stitution and unalterable by congress sional legislation We first inquire whe- 1 ther the proceeding contemplated by the i statute IS for civil or criminal con | tempt If 1t be the latter-since the pro- ceeding for criminal contempt, unlike that for civil contempt, IS between the public and the defendant, Is an indepen- dent proceedings at law, and no part of l the original cause, Gompers vs. Bucks Stove & Range Co, 221 U. s. 418( 444- 444-
 
 doubt which might otherwise arise in respect of the authority of Congress to set aside the settled rule that suit in equity IS to be tried by the chancellor without jury unless he choose to call one as purely advisory. We think the statute, reasonably construed, related exclusively to criminal contempts The act or thing charged must be of such character as also to constitute a crime. Prosecution must be in conformity with the practice i'll criminal cases. Upon conviction the accused is to be punished by fine or imprisonment, or both True, the fine may be paid to the United States or to the complainant or divided maong the parties injured by the act, as the court may direct; but that does not alter the essential nature of the pro- ceeding contemplated by the statute The discretion given the court in this respect Is incidental and subordinate to the dominating purpose of the proceed ing which is punitive to vindicate the authority of the court and punish the act fdisobedience as public wrong See Re Merchants Stock Co.,, Petitioner, 223 U. s. 639, 641; Matter of Christen- son Engineering Co.,, 194 U S. 458, 431; Merchants Stock & Grain Co., vs Board l of Trade 187 Fed. 3o8, 4O1; Kreplik vs Couch Patents Co.,, 1o0 Fed 565, 572 "1f the contempt savers of crimina1ity, and the sentence is penal, that accord ing to the books appears to be enough" Long Wellesley's case Russ. & M., 63o, 667.
 But it is contended that the statute materially interferes with the inherent power of the courts and is therefore in