Latest Important Cases question, except the amount of dam ages."
The Court said: — "It has been argued here that the mere fact that any individual defend ant was a member of and contributed money to the treasury of the United
Hatters’ Association made him princi pal of any and all agents who might be employed by its oflicers in carrying out
the objects of the Association, and responsible as principals if such agents used illegal methods or caused illegal methods to be used in undertaking to carry out their objects. We cannot
assent to this proposition. . . . Some thing more must be shown, as for instance that with the knowledge of the members
unlawful means had been so frequently used with the express tacit approval of the Association that its agents were warranted in assuming that they might
371
Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the District erred in treating the con tempt proceedings as a criminal case
and not a civil one. The Court (Lamar, J.) said:—
“This was a proceeding in equity for civil contempt, where the only remedial relief possible was a fine payable to the complainant. The company prayed
‘for such relief as the nature of its case may require,’ and when the main cause was terminated by a settlement of all differences between the parties the com plainant did not require and was not
entitled to any compensation or relief of any other character. The present proceeding necessarily ended with the settlement of the main cause of which
it isapart. . . . The criminal sentences imposed in the civil case therefore should be set aside."
use such unlawful means in the future,
Forest Reserves. Power of Congress that the Association and its members would approve or tolerate such use whenever the end sought to be obtained might best be obtained thereby."
to Establish Without State's Consent— Wilful Trespass — AdministrativePowers —Federal Public Lands. U. S.
Conservation of Natural sources. See Forest Reserves.
gress cannot constitutionally withdraw
Replying to the contention that Con Re
Distinction between Civil
large tracts of land from settlement without the consent of the state where it
and Criminal Ofi'ense—Proceedings in
is located, the United States Supreme
Equity for Civil Contempt Make only
Court (Lamar, J.) said in Light v. U. 5., decided May 1 (L. ed. adv. sheets p.
Contempt.
Fines Possible.
U. S.
In Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co.,
L.
ed.
adv.
sheets,
492,
the
United States Supreme Court held on May 15 that Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank Morrison, president, vice-president and secretary, respec
tively, of the American Federation of Labor, had been erroneously sentenced to jail on a charge of contempt of a
local court. held fines the be imposed. the United
The Court unanimously only sentences that could The Supreme Court of States found that the
485): “ ‘All the public lands of the nation
are held in trust for the people of the whole country.’ U. S. v. Trinidad Coal 8c Coking Co., 137 U. S. 160, 34 L. ed. 640, 11 Sup. Ct., Rep. 57. And it is not for the courts to say how that trust shall be administered. That is for Congress to
determine. The courts cannot compel it to set aside the lands for settlement, or to suffer them to be used for agri cultural or grazing purposes, nor inter fere when, in the exercise of its discretion,
