Michaelson v. United States Chicago, St Ry Co Sandefur v. Canoe Creek Coal Co

• Decision Date: 20 October 1924
• Docket Number: Nos. 246 and 232,s. 246 and 232
• Citation: 35 A. L. R. 451,69 L.Ed. 162,45 S.Ct. 18,266 U.S. 42
• Parties: MICHAELSON et al. v. UNITED STATES ex rel. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. SANDEFUR v. CANOE CREEK COAL CO
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

266 U.S. 42

45 S.Ct. 18

69 L.Ed. 162

MICHAELSON et al.

v UNITED STATES ex rel. CHICAGO, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO.

SANDEFUR

v. CANOE CREEK COAL CO.

Nos. 246 and 232.

Argued April 9 and 10, 1924.

Decided Oct. 20, 1924.

[Syllabus from pages 42-44 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Donald R. Richberg, of Chicago, Ill., John A. Cadigan, of Superior, Wis., and Jackson H. Ralston, of New York City, for petitioners Michaelson and others.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 44-50 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Jackson H. Ralston, of New York City, and James W. Henson, of Henderson, Ky., for petitioner Sandefur.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 50-54 intentionally omitted] Mr. Edward Porter Humphrey, of Louisville, Ky., for Canoe Creek Coal co.

Mr. Richard L. Kennedy, of St. Paul, Minn., for respondent Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 55-61 intentionally omitted]

Page 62

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases were argued together and will be disposed of in one opinion. The principal question presented in the Michaelson Case, and the sole question in the Sandefur Case, is whether the provision of the Clayton Act of October 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 738, §§ 21, 22 (Comp. St. §§ 1245a, 1245b), requiring a jury trial in certain specified kinds of contempt

Page 63

is constitutional. Subordinate questions presented in the Michaelson Case are: (a) Whether petitioners were, or whether it is necessary that they should be, 'employees' within the meaning of section 20 of the act (Comp. St. § 1243d); (b) whether the acts alleged to constitute the contempt were also criminal offenses under the statutes of the United States or of the state where committed; (c) whether the provision for a jury is mandatory or permissive.

The petitioners in the Michaelson Case were striking employees of the Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, and, with others, were proceeded against by bill in equity for combining and conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by picketing and the use of force and violence, etc. After a hearing, a preliminary injunction was granted. Subsequently proceedings in contempt were instituted in the District Court, charging petitioners with sundry violations of the injunction, and a rule to show cause was issued. Upon the answer and return to the rule, petitioners applied for a jury trial under section 22 of the Clayton Act; but the District Court denied the application and proceeded without a jury. At the conclusion of the hearing, the petitioners were adjudged guilty and sentenced to pay fines in various sums, and in default of payment to stand committed to jail until such fines were paid. Thereupon the case was taken to the Circuit Court of Appeals by writ of error, and by that court the judgments were affirmed. 291 F. 940.

First. Is the provision of the Clayton Act, granting a right of trial by jury, constitutional? The court below held in the negative, on the ground that the power of a court to vindicate or enforce its decree in equity is inherent, is derived from the Constitution as a part of its judicial power, and that Congress is without constitutional authority to deprive the parties in an equity court of the right of trial by the chancellor.

Page 64

If the statute now under review encroaches upon the equity jurisdiction intended by the Constitution, a grave constitutional question in respect of its validity would be presented; and it therefore becomes our duty, as this court has frequently said, to construe it, 'if fairly possible, so as to avoid, not only the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, but also grave doubts upon that score.' Panama Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748.

Shortly stated, the statute provides that willful disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any District Court of the United States or any court of the District 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 statute of the United States or law of any state in which the act is committed, shall be proceeded against as in the statute provided. In all such cases the 'trial may be by the court, or, upon demand of the accused, by a jury' and 'such trial shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice in criminal cases prosecuted by indictment or upon information.' Upon conviction the accused is to be punished 'by fine or imprisonment, or both,' the fine to be 'paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned 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 answered is whether it infringes any power of the courts vested by the Constitution and unalterable by congressional legislation. We first inquire whether the proceeding contemplated by the statute is for a civil or a criminal contempt. If it be the latter—since the proceeding for criminal contempt, unlike that for civil contempt, is between the public and the defendant, is an independent proceeding at law, and no part of the original cause

Page 65

(Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 444-446, 451, 31 S. Ct. 492, 55 L. Ed. 797, 34 L. R. A. [N. S.] 874)—we are at once relieved of the doubt which might otherwise arise in respect of the authority of Congress to set aside the settled rule that a suit in equity is to be tried by the chancellor without a jury unless he choose to call one as purely advisory, We think the statute, reasonably construed, relates 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 in 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 among the parties injured by the act, as the court may direct; but that does not alter the essential nature of the proceeding contemplated by the statute. The discretion given the court in this respect is incidental and subordinate to the dominating purpose of the proceeding which is punitive to vindicate the authority of the court and punish the act of disobedience as a public wrong. See Re Merchants Stock Co., Petitioner, 223 U. S. 639, 641, 32 S. Ct. 339, 56 L. Ed. 584; Matter of Christenson Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458, 461, 24 S. Ct. 729, 48 L. Ed. 1072; Merchants' Stock & Grain Co. v. Board of Trade, 187 F. 398, 401, 109 C. C. A. 230, Kreplik v. Couch Patents Co., 190 F. 565, 572, 111 C. C. A. 381. 'If the contempt savors of criminality, and the sentence is penal, that according to the books appears to be enough.' Long Wellesley's Case, 2 Russ. & M. 639, 667.

But it is contended that the statute materially interferes with the inherent power of the courts and is therefore invalid. That the power to punish for contempts is inherent in all courts, has been many times decided and may be regarded as settled law. It is essential to the administration of justice. The courts of the United States, when called into existence and vested with jurisdiction

Page 66

over and subject, at once become possessed of the power. So far as the inferior federal courts are concerned, however, it is not beyond the authority of Congress (Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510-511, 22 L. Ed. 205; Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324, 326, 24 S. Ct. 665, 48 L. Ed. 997); but the attributes which inhere in that power and are inseparable from it can neither be abrogated nor rendered practically inoperative. That it may be regulated within limits not precisely defined may not be doubted. The statute now under review is of the latter character. It is of narrow scope, dealing with the single class where the act or thing constituting the contempt is also a crime in the ordinary sense. It does not interfere with the power to deal summarily with contempts committed in the presence of the court or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, and is in express terms cerefully limited to the cases of contempt specifically defined. Neither do we think it purports to reach cases of failure or refusal to comply affirmatively with a decree that is to do something which a decree commands—which may be enforced by coercive means or remedied by purely compensatory relief. If the reach of the statute had extended to the cases which are excluded a different and more serious question would arise. But the simple question presented is whether Congress may require a trial by jury upon the demand of the accused in an independent 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 must be beyond reasonable doubt and the defendant may not be compelled to be a witness against himself, Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., supra, p. 444 (31 S. Ct. 492.) The fundamental characteristics of both are the same. Contempts of the kind within the terms of the statute partake of the nature of crimes in all essential particulars. 'So truly are they crimes that it seems to be proved that in the early law they were

Page 67

punished only by the usual criminal procedure, 3 Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (N. S.) p. 147 (1885), and that at least in England it seems that they still may be and preferably are tried in that way.' Gompers v. United States, 233 U. S. 604, 610-611, 34 S. Ct. 693, 58 L. Ed. 1115, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 1044. This is also pointed out by counsel in the case of O'Shea v. O'Shea and Parnell, L. R. 15 Prob. Div. 50, 61; and, in the course of one of the opinions in that case, it is...