Evening star., 1947-03-07

civil contempt IN InlS case and
would limit the right to proceed
by civil contempt to situations in
which the United States is en-
forcing a statute expressly allowing
resort to the courts for enforcement
Of statutory orders.
The United States was fully en-
titled to bring the present suit and
to benefit from orders entered in
It's behalf.
Amount Of Fines.
1t is urged that. in any event
the amount of the fine of $4,000
imposed on the defendant Lewis
and of the fine of $500, 900 i'm
posed on the defendant union were
arbitrary, excessive, and in no way
related to the evidence adduced at
the hearing.
Sentences for criminal contempt
are punitive in their nature and are
imposed for the purpose of vindi-
eating the authority of sthe court
-. The interests Of orderly gov
ernment demand that respect and
compliance be given to orders is
sued by courts possessed Of jurisdic-
ton of person and subject matter
One who defies the public authority
and willfully refuses his obedience
does so at his peril.
In imposing a fine for criminal
contempt, the trial judge may prop
erly take into consideration the ex-
tent of the willful and deliberate
defiance of the courts order, the
seriousness Of the consequences o1
the contumacious behavior, the
necessity of effectively terminating
the defendants defiance as required
by the public interest, and the i'm.
portance of deterring such acts in
the future. Because of the nature oil
these standards, great reliance musi
be placed upon the discretion Of the
trial judge.
The trial court properly found the
defendants guilty of criminal con-
tempt. Such contempt had contin.
ued for Is days from the issuance OF
the restraining order until the find
ing Of guilty. It's willfulness had
not been qualified by any concur
rent attempt on defendants pari
to challenge the order by motion tc
vacate or other appropriate proce-
dures.
Immediately following the finding
of guilty, defendant Lewis stated
openly in court that defendants
would adhere to their policy of de-
fiance. This policy, as the evidence
showed, was the germ center of an
economic paralysis which was rap
idly extending itself from the btu
minous coal mines into practically
every other major industry of the
United States. 1t was an attempt
to repudiate and override the In
strument of lawful government In
the very situation in which govern
mental action was indispensable
''' We think the record clearly
warrants a fine Of $4,000 against
defendant Lewis for criminal con-
tempt.
Unions Fine Held Excessive.
A majority of the court, however
does not think that it warrants the
unconditional imposition of a fine
OF $500, 900 against the defendant
union. A majority feels that, if
the court below had assessed a fine
OF 100000 against the defendant
union, this; under the circumstances,
would not be excessive as punish
ment for the criminal contempt
heretofore committed; and feels
that, in order to coerce the de-
fendant union into a future COM
pliance with the courts order, it
would have been effective to make
the other $2,800, 900 OF the fine con-
ditional on the defendants failure
to purge itself within a reasonable
time.
Accordingly, the Judgment against
the defendant union is held to be
excessive. It will be modified so as
to require the defendant union to
pay . fine Of $700, 900, and further
to pay an additional fine of So
100000 unless the defendant union,
within five days after the issuance
OF the mandate herein, shows that
1t has fully complied with the
temporary restraining order issued
November 1S, 1916, and the prelimi-
nary injunction issued December 4,
1916. =
The defendant union can effect
full compliance only by withdrawing
Internationally the notice given by
1t, signed by John L. Lewis, presi-
dent. on November Is, 1916, to j. A.
krug. Secretary of the Interior
terminating the Krug-Lewis agree
ment as of IL o'clock midnight
Wednesday, November 20, 1916, and
by notifying, at the same time, its
members of such withdrawal in SUBJ
stantially the same manner as the
members of the defendant. union
were notified of the notice to the
Secretary of the> Interior above
mentioned; and by withdrawing and
similarly instructing the members
OF the defendant union of the with
drawal of any other notice to the
effect that the Krug-Lewis agree
ment is not in full force and effect
until the final determination of the
basic issues arising under the said
agreement.
Serious Threat Cited"
We well realize the serious pro-
portions of the fines here imposed
upon the defendant union. But a
majority feels that the course taken
by the union carried with 1t such q
serious threat to orderly constitu-
tional government, and to the eco
nomic and social welfare of the
Nation that fine of substantial size
is required in order to emphasize the
gravity of the offense of which the
union was found guilty.
The defendant Lewis, 1t is true
was the aggressive leader in the
studied and deliberate noncompli-
ance with the order of the District
Court; but, as the record shows. he
stated in open court prior to i'm
position OF the fines that "the repre-
sentatives of the United Mine
Workers determined that the So
called Krug-Lewis agreement was
preached" and that it was the
unions Representatives" who mott
fed the Secretary of the Interior
that the contract was terminated as
of November 20th." And certainly II
was the members of the defendant