The Connecticut labor news., 1924-11-08

thing constituting the contempt IS also a crime in the ordinary sense. It bes not interefere with the power to deal summarily with contempts committed i'll the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administr 'tion of justice, and Is in express terms are fully limited to the cases of contempt specifically defined Neither do we thirk it purports to reach cases of failure Or refusal to comply afflrmatively with a decree-that is to do something which a decree. commands-which may be en- forced by coercive means or remed1ed by purely compensatory relief. Ii the reach of the statute had extended to the cases which are excluded different and more serious question would arise. But the simple question presented IS, whether Congress may require trial by jury upon the demand of the ac- cused in an indepedent proceeding at law for a criminal contempt which is also a crime. In criminal contempts, as in criminal cases, the presumption of innocence obtains, Proof of guilt may be beyond reasonable doubt and the de- fendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself, Gompers vs. Bucks Stove & Range Co.,, supra, p. 444. The fundamental characteristics of both are the same. Contempts of the kind within the terms of the statue partake
 l1- [ rOl particulars. "So truly are they crimes that 1t seems to be proved that in the early law they were punished only by the usual criminal procedure, 3, Trans N. s. D. AZ (1885), and that at least in England 1t seems that they still may be and preferably are tried in that way" Gompers vs United States, 233 U. s. by counsel in the case of O'Shea vs, 50, 61; and, in the course of one of the opinions in that case, 1t IS said (p 64) "The offence of appellant (crimi- nal contempt is certainly a criminal of
 fence I do not say that 1t Is an in dictable offence, but, whether indictable or not, it is a criminal offence, and 1t Is an offence, and the only one that I know of, which is punishable at com mon law by summary process" The proceeding Is not between the parties to the original suit between the public and the defendant The only substantial difference between such proceeding as we have here, and a criminal. prosecu- ton by indictment or information is that III the latter the act complained of IS the violation of law and in the for mer the violation of decree. In the case of the latter, the accused has a constitutional right of trial by jury j; while in the former he has not The statutory extension of this constitutional right to class of contempts which are properly described as criminal offen- ces" does not, in our opinion, invade the powers of the courts as inteded by the Constitution or vilate that instru- ment III any other way.
 Second We come, then, to consider the reasons which, assuming the validity of the statute, are neverthless urged to preclude the right to jury trial. The
 first contention is that petitioners were not employees" within the meaning of the act, because, having gone out on strike, the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end The dis of .oI, +6o ,f,.1 acts alleged in the bill was one between the employer on the one hand and its employees on the other, rspecting terms or conditions of employment, namely, the scale of wages to be paid employees of the class to which defendants be- longed This dispute had been submitted to the Railroad Labor Board, which, af- ter a hearing, had fixed the scale to be paid; but the defendants declined to abide by the action of the Board and went out on strike, and in furtherance thereof conspired together and commit ted various unlawful acts in restraint of respondents interstate commerce. The purpose of the strike was to bring about an increase of wages. The case was obviously within the provisions of para. 20, in respect of injunctions. The court below held that, while ordinarily this would be so, it was not so in this instance because, CD the employer was railroad company, bound to continue its operations in the public interest and therefore not on an equal footing with its employees, and @ that, since the scale of wages had been fixed by the Railroad Labor Board, the strike, in effect, was against the Board, govern mental instrumentality, "to be chased with the instruction of the Boseton po- licemen" To say that railroad em- ployees are outside the provisions of