HEAVILY FINED

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 67, Issue 47, 5 December 1946, Page 5

HEAVILY FINED

LEWIS AND UNITED MINEWORKERS DECISION OF COURT (N.Z. Press Association—Copyright.) (Rec. 12.10) WASHINGTON, Dec. 4. The Federal Court fined John L. Lewis 10,000 dollars and United Mineworkers 3,500,000 dollars for contempt of court. A series of conferences in chambers between Judge Goldsborough and both counsel delayed the sentences. Crowds wailed both in and outside the courtroom.

The court, which met this morning, adjourned at noon until 3 p.m., and upon resumption the Government Attorney, Mr Sonnet, asked the court to fine the United Mineworkers 3,500,000 dollars for contempt,' Mr Sonnet said Lewis should be subjected to “substantial punishment,” but “at this time a gaol sentence can accomplish nothing.” Judge Goldsborough asked Mr Sonnet whether the Government desired a permanent injunction against Lewis and the United Mineworkers, Mr Sonnet, replied that he' thought a temporary injunction would suffice. Judge Goldsborough said he wondered, in view of the fa’dt that “this contempt may continue” whether he could agree that the fine should be a quarter of a million dollars per day from midnight on November 20. A.F.L. counsel, Mr Padway, commenting on the Government’s recommendation, said there was no evidence showing damage of 3,500,000 dollars. He added that penalties cannot be founded on imagination. He declared that the proposed fine would be “cruel and inhuman,” and pointed out that there was no similar case on record except one which was reversed. Mr Padway argued that the Government’s case did not sustain civil contempt. The verdict* and the court's criminal contempt finding violated the 'constitution. Imposition on Individuals

Before the sentence was .imposed Mr Padway told the court the defence had been trying to ascertain whether individual miners were held in contempt, but he had not received an answer. He adsed that a fine of 3,500,000 dollars was nothing more than an imposition against individual miners. “It is his dues, his cents, his dollars, that will have to satisfy such a judgment as that.” If it was the Government’s intention to put U.M.W.A. out of business and destroy the union by a fine of such magnitude, it might as well know now that their purpose would not be accomplished and the miners would remain as strong as ever, said Mr Padway. The Government’s proposed fine, was “unjust, improper and outrageous.” ' The union counsel, Mr Welly Hopkins, said the Government’s recommendations “will live in infamy.” The Government was seeking to repress millions of men, “shame upon the Government for trying to perpetrate such an outrage.” He added: “I denounce the Government’s action with all my heart and soul.” Mr Hopkins said the proposed fine made him feel that he should challenge physically the Government representatives who suggested it. “Shame upon you, double shame.” Mr Lewis arose and shook ihands with him. He said, “Sir, I associate myself with every word you have uttered. I do not desire any mercy from the court.” Judge Warns Lewis Lewis told the court wliat property he possessed. He said that apart fiom it he had only enough money to pay his expenses. “So far as I am concerned, do not. let that detei you from fining me any amount.” Lewis, raising his voice, accused Government counsel of lying to thecourt about his expense account. The Judge warned him not again to commit contempt. Lewis retorted: “I have been adjudged for contempt.” The Judge replied: “Yes, but there are other kinds of contempt.” The Judge said the case represented an unprecedented situation. “This is not an attack by a low lawbreaker. It is an evil, monstrous thing. This coal strike is one of the most serious threats ever experienced in this country. It. means hunger, cold and destitution. It; is a threat, to democratic government itself.” 1 The Judge added: “No one wants to see the union dealt a mortal blow, nor anything done which would turn back labour conditions, but if it becomes a question of the destruction of this union or the country’s preservation, the country is going to be preserved.” At Mr Sonnett’s request, the court granted an injunction against Lewis and U.M.W.A. to replace the restraining order. Mr Sonnett indicated that further penalties would be asked if the coal stoppage continued. The defence filed notice of appeal apd moved that the judgment be suspended. Mr Sonnett did not object, provided the defence posted a bond. The court gaA r e the defence until 3 p.m. to-morrow to post the bond.