Gompers v. United States
Petitioner
Samuel Gompers
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That the alleged contempt took place more than three years before the proceedings began and therefore beyond the statute of limitations.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Alton B. Parker
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. J. Darlington
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, EdwardDouglass White
Justices Dissenting
Mahlon Pitney, Willis Van Devanter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
11 May 1914
Decision
The Court reversed the decision of the lower court based on the statue of limitations to punish contempt was three years.
Significance
In this case the Court settled controversy over whether contempt was actuallya crime by stating that it definitely was. It also resolved the issue of a statute of limitations for punishing contempt, settling on a term of three years.
Before 1932, the courts attempted to control the activities of labor unions by issuing injunctions that forbade strikes and picketing. Around the turn ofthe century labor unions began increasingly to use boycotts against individual employers to force them to provide improved working conditions and higher wages. The courts attempted to stop the boycotts by using antilabor injunctions.
Samuel Gompers served as the first president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) from 1886 to 1924. Gompers and two other labor leaders were convicted of violating an antiboycott injunction for running a notice in its magazine listing Buck's Stove & Range Company along with other companies under the heading "We Don't Patronize." On 15 May 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on the case Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company. The Court refusedto reexamine the validity of the injunction issued by the lower court and rejected Gompers' claim that the First Amendment protected his activities. However, the convictions were reversed on the ground that the contempts were civilbut the lower court had treated them as criminal in nature. The aim of civilcontempt is remediation while the purpose of criminal contempt is punitive.
Although the Court had dismissed the charges in Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company, the supreme court of the district retained the power to punish contempt, if any had been committed against it. The day after the decision, the supreme court of the district appointed a committee to see if there was reasonable cause to believe that Gompers was guilty of willfully violating an injunction issued by that court on 18 December 1907.
On 26 June 1911, the committee reported that Gompers was guilty of violatingthe injunction. Rules to show cause were issued that day requiring each of the defendants to show why they should not be adjudged to be in contempt and bepunished for it. Gompers pleaded the statute of limitations and not guilty to most of the charges. A trial took place, the statute of limitations was held inapplicable, and Gompers was found guilty and sentenced to prison for 12 months. The court of appeals reduced the sentence to imprisonment for 30 days.
The Provisions of the Constitution Are Not Mathematical Formulas
In 1914, the Supreme Court in Gompers v. United States looked again atthe contempt charges brought against Gompers. Considering the statute of limitations the Court noted that the injunction was made permanent on 23 March 1908. The statute of limitations states that "no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense not capital . . . unless the indictment isfound or the information is instituted within three years next after such offense shall have been committed." Gompers treated these proceedings as beginning on 16 May 1911, when the inquiry began, thus barring contempts before 16 May 1908. Gompers also argued that the inquiry was only looking at violationsof the preliminary injunction, which expired when the final decree took effect on 23 March 1908. Holmes countered that the report mentioned the final decree and acts later than 23 March and that the order to show cause referred tothe injunctions, in the plural.
The charges against Gompers included rushing the publication of the American Federationist after he knew about the injunction but before it went into effect. Another charge involved referring to the judge as so far having transcended his authority that even court of appeals judges criticized him andthat in such circumstances "it is the duty of the citizens to refuse obedience and to take whatever consequences may ensue."
Holmes noted that it had been argued that the contempts cannot be crimes because they are not within the protection of the Constitution and amendments giving a right to trial by jury. He responded that "the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; theyare organic, living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital, not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of theirgrowth."
In discussing the meaning of the statute of limitations, Holmes noted that "the substantive portion of the section is that no person shall be tried for any offense . . . except within a certain time. Those words are of universal scope. What follows is a natural way of expressing that the proceedings must bebegun within three years." Holmes stated that the power to punish for contempt must have some time limit and that limit should be three years. The majority of the Court voted to reverse the judgments against Gompers since they were based on offenses that could not be taken into consideration.
Gompers wrote in an editorial in the American Federationist that the Court had refused to rule on the great human issues involved in the case, which were free speech and free press. Instead the ideas were lost in a maze of legal technicalities. Gompers felt that since the judiciary would not reform the abuses of the injunction process, the reforms must be gotten by legislation. Through lobbying and campaigning, the AFL attempted the statutory abolition of the labor injunction. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 appeared to prohibit federal courts from barring peaceful picketing or communicative activities connected with labor strikes or boycotts. Gompers felt the Clayton Antitrust Act would bring about a new order of human relations in industry and was fundamental to human liberty. However, the lower courts interpreted the deliberately vague language of the anti-injunction provisions so hostilely that nochange came about.
Impact
In 1958, in Green v. United States, the Court cited Gompers v. United States as a case which discussed the relationship between criminal contempts and jury trial and that had concluded or assumed that criminal contempts are not subject to jury trial. In Gompers, the Court construed that summary trials were permitted in contempt cases because at common law contempt wastried without a jury. Until United States v. Barnett (1964), the Courtconsistently upheld the constitutional power of the state and federal courtsto punish any criminal contempt without a jury trial and Gompers wascited as precedent for this. In Bloom v. Illinois, the Court noted that criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The Court quoted Justice Holmes, writing for the majority in Gompers v. United States: "These contempts are infractions of the law, visited with punishment as such. If such acts are not criminal, we are in error as to the mostfundamental characteristic of crimes as that word has been understood in English speech." The Court concluded that convictions for criminal contempt areindistinguishable from ordinary criminal convictions, for their impact on theindividual defendant is the same. Indeed, the role of criminal contempt andthat of many ordinary criminal laws seem identical--protection of the institutions of our government and enforcement of their mandates.
Related Cases
Samuel Gompers
One of the most influential leaders of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers (1850-1924) was born in London and emigrated to the United States withhis parents in 1863. Like his father, he entered the cigar-making trade. He became a leader of the cigar makers union and eventually became the first president of the American Federation of Labor when it formed in 1886, holding theposition until his death in 1924.
Gompers was an advocate of "business unionism," also called "pure and simpleunionism." This approach to organizing workers emphasized the basics of collective bargaining and was essentially conservative in its acceptance of the prevailing economic order. Government intervention and social reform were not emphasized, as in more radical labor organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Gompers also favored the organization of labor nationally by trade or craft, as opposed to the "one big union" of the IWW or the vertical integration of all employees of a firm intoa single union that was later favored by the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Sources
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garaty, eds. The Reader's Companion to American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.
Samuel Gompers
Respondent
United States
Petitioner's Claim
That the alleged contempt took place more than three years before the proceedings began and therefore beyond the statute of limitations.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Alton B. Parker
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. J. Darlington
Justices for the Court
William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph Rucker Lamar, Horace Harmon Lurton, Joseph McKenna, EdwardDouglass White
Justices Dissenting
Mahlon Pitney, Willis Van Devanter
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
11 May 1914
Decision
The Court reversed the decision of the lower court based on the statue of limitations to punish contempt was three years.
Significance
In this case the Court settled controversy over whether contempt was actuallya crime by stating that it definitely was. It also resolved the issue of a statute of limitations for punishing contempt, settling on a term of three years.
Before 1932, the courts attempted to control the activities of labor unions by issuing injunctions that forbade strikes and picketing. Around the turn ofthe century labor unions began increasingly to use boycotts against individual employers to force them to provide improved working conditions and higher wages. The courts attempted to stop the boycotts by using antilabor injunctions.
Samuel Gompers served as the first president of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) from 1886 to 1924. Gompers and two other labor leaders were convicted of violating an antiboycott injunction for running a notice in its magazine listing Buck's Stove & Range Company along with other companies under the heading "We Don't Patronize." On 15 May 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on the case Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Company. The Court refusedto reexamine the validity of the injunction issued by the lower court and rejected Gompers' claim that the First Amendment protected his activities. However, the convictions were reversed on the ground that the contempts were civilbut the lower court had treated them as criminal in nature. The aim of civilcontempt is remediation while the purpose of criminal contempt is punitive.
Although the Court had dismissed the charges in Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company, the supreme court of the district retained the power to punish contempt, if any had been committed against it. The day after the decision, the supreme court of the district appointed a committee to see if there was reasonable cause to believe that Gompers was guilty of willfully violating an injunction issued by that court on 18 December 1907.
On 26 June 1911, the committee reported that Gompers was guilty of violatingthe injunction. Rules to show cause were issued that day requiring each of the defendants to show why they should not be adjudged to be in contempt and bepunished for it. Gompers pleaded the statute of limitations and not guilty to most of the charges. A trial took place, the statute of limitations was held inapplicable, and Gompers was found guilty and sentenced to prison for 12 months. The court of appeals reduced the sentence to imprisonment for 30 days.
The Provisions of the Constitution Are Not Mathematical Formulas
In 1914, the Supreme Court in Gompers v. United States looked again atthe contempt charges brought against Gompers. Considering the statute of limitations the Court noted that the injunction was made permanent on 23 March 1908. The statute of limitations states that "no person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offense not capital . . . unless the indictment isfound or the information is instituted within three years next after such offense shall have been committed." Gompers treated these proceedings as beginning on 16 May 1911, when the inquiry began, thus barring contempts before 16 May 1908. Gompers also argued that the inquiry was only looking at violationsof the preliminary injunction, which expired when the final decree took effect on 23 March 1908. Holmes countered that the report mentioned the final decree and acts later than 23 March and that the order to show cause referred tothe injunctions, in the plural.
The charges against Gompers included rushing the publication of the American Federationist after he knew about the injunction but before it went into effect. Another charge involved referring to the judge as so far having transcended his authority that even court of appeals judges criticized him andthat in such circumstances "it is the duty of the citizens to refuse obedience and to take whatever consequences may ensue."
In discussing the meaning of the statute of limitations, Holmes noted that "the substantive portion of the section is that no person shall be tried for any offense . . . except within a certain time. Those words are of universal scope. What follows is a natural way of expressing that the proceedings must bebegun within three years." Holmes stated that the power to punish for contempt must have some time limit and that limit should be three years. The majority of the Court voted to reverse the judgments against Gompers since they were based on offenses that could not be taken into consideration.
Gompers wrote in an editorial in the American Federationist that the Court had refused to rule on the great human issues involved in the case, which were free speech and free press. Instead the ideas were lost in a maze of legal technicalities. Gompers felt that since the judiciary would not reform the abuses of the injunction process, the reforms must be gotten by legislation. Through lobbying and campaigning, the AFL attempted the statutory abolition of the labor injunction. The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 appeared to prohibit federal courts from barring peaceful picketing or communicative activities connected with labor strikes or boycotts. Gompers felt the Clayton Antitrust Act would bring about a new order of human relations in industry and was fundamental to human liberty. However, the lower courts interpreted the deliberately vague language of the anti-injunction provisions so hostilely that nochange came about.
Impact
In 1958, in Green v. United States, the Court cited Gompers v. United States as a case which discussed the relationship between criminal contempts and jury trial and that had concluded or assumed that criminal contempts are not subject to jury trial. In Gompers, the Court construed that summary trials were permitted in contempt cases because at common law contempt wastried without a jury. Until United States v. Barnett (1964), the Courtconsistently upheld the constitutional power of the state and federal courtsto punish any criminal contempt without a jury trial and Gompers wascited as precedent for this. In Bloom v. Illinois, the Court noted that criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense; it is a violation of the law, a public wrong which is punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. The Court quoted Justice Holmes, writing for the majority in Gompers v. United States: "These contempts are infractions of the law, visited with punishment as such. If such acts are not criminal, we are in error as to the mostfundamental characteristic of crimes as that word has been understood in English speech." The Court concluded that convictions for criminal contempt areindistinguishable from ordinary criminal convictions, for their impact on theindividual defendant is the same. Indeed, the role of criminal contempt andthat of many ordinary criminal laws seem identical--protection of the institutions of our government and enforcement of their mandates.
Related Cases
- Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165 (1958).
- United States v. Barnett, 377 U.S. 973 (1964).
- Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968).
Samuel Gompers
One of the most influential leaders of the American labor movement, Samuel Gompers (1850-1924) was born in London and emigrated to the United States withhis parents in 1863. Like his father, he entered the cigar-making trade. He became a leader of the cigar makers union and eventually became the first president of the American Federation of Labor when it formed in 1886, holding theposition until his death in 1924.
Gompers was an advocate of "business unionism," also called "pure and simpleunionism." This approach to organizing workers emphasized the basics of collective bargaining and was essentially conservative in its acceptance of the prevailing economic order. Government intervention and social reform were not emphasized, as in more radical labor organizations such as the Knights of Labor and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Gompers also favored the organization of labor nationally by trade or craft, as opposed to the "one big union" of the IWW or the vertical integration of all employees of a firm intoa single union that was later favored by the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Foner, Eric, and John A. Garaty, eds. The Reader's Companion to American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.
Further Readings
- Hall, Kermit L., ed. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court ofthe United States. New York: Oxford Press, 1992.
- Mandel, Bernard. Samuel Gompers: A Biography. Yellow Springs, OH:The Antioch Press, 1963.
User Comments Add a comment…