ment it inflicted. It was not excessive. Savin, Petitioner, 131 U. S. 270; United States v. Sweeny, 95 Fed. Rep. 452, 457. And though the proceeding was begun at the instance of the Bucks Company, and the procedure thereafter was such as the record shows it to have been, the precedents clearly show that the court was well within its authority in proceeding to inflict the punishment it did in vindicating its dignity. It was a proceeding on its face looking towards punishment, only punishment. There was absolutely nothing in the case which could suggest to the court or the accused that the party was seeking coercion of the accused into doing something which they had been commanded to do. It can only be by a forced construction, violating the plain provisions of the whole record, that even a plausible contention can be made that this was a proceeding for a civil contempt. To reach such a conclusion it would be necessary to ignore the manifest difference between punishing the accused by a fine payable to the complainant by way of reparation for the violation of the injunction, and fining or imprisoning him to compel the performance of an act he had been ordered to do. MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court. The defendants, Samuel Gompers, John Mitchell and Frank Morrison, were found guilty of contempt of court in making certain publications prohibited by an injunction from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. They were sentenced to imprisonment for twelve, nine and six months respectively, and this proceeding is prosecuted to reverse that judgment. The order alleged to have been violated was granted in the equity suit of the "Bucks Stove & Range Company v. The American Federation of Labor and others," in which the court issued an injunction restraining all the defendants from boycotting the complainant, or from publishing or otherwise making any statement that the Bucks Stove & Range Company was, or had been, on the "Unfair" or "We don't patronize" lists. Some months later the complainant filed a petition in the cause, alleging that the three defendants above-named, parties to the original cause, in contempt of court and in violation of its order, had disobeyed the injunction by publishing statements which either directly or indirectly called attention to the fact that the Bucks Stove & Range Company was on the "Unfair" list, and that they had thereby continued the boycott which had been enjoined. The defendants filed separate answers under oath, and, each denied: (1) That they had been in contempt or disregard of the court's orders: (2) That the statements complained of constituted any violation of the order; and, on the argument, (3) contended that if the publication should be construed to amount to a violation of the injunction they could not be punished therefor, because the court must not only possess jurisdiction of the parties and the subject-matter, but must have authority to render the particular judgment. Insisting, therefore, that the court could not abridge the liberty of speech or freedom of the press, the defendants claim that the injunction as a whole was a nullity, and that no contempt proceeding could be maintained for any disobedience of any of its provisions, general or special. If this last proposition were sound it would be unnecessary to go further into an examination of the case or to determine whether the defendants had in fact disobeyed the prohibitions contained in the injunction. Ex parte Rowland, 104 U. S. 612. But we will not enter upon a discussion of the constitutional question raised, for the general provisions of the injunction did not, in terms, つ restrain any form of publication. The defendants' attack on this part of the injunction raises no question as to an abridgment of free speech, but involves the power of a court of equity to enjoin the defendants from continuing a boycott which, by words and signals, printed or spoken, caused or threatened irreparable damage. Courts differ as to what constitutes a boycott that may, be enjoined. All hold that there must be a conspiracy causing irreparable damage to the business or property of the complainant. Some hold that a boycott against the complainant, by a combination of persons not immediately connected with him in business, can be restrained. Others hold that the secondary boycott can be enjoined, where the conspiracy extends not only to injuring the complainant, but secondarily coerces or attempts to coerce his customers to refrain from dealing with him by threats that unless they do they themselves will be boycotted. Others hold that no boycott can be enjoined unless there are acts of physical violence, or intimidation caused by threats of physical violence. But whatever the requirement of the particular jurisdiction, as to the conditions on which the injunction against a boycott may issue; when these facts exist, the strong current of authority is that the publication and use of letters, circulars and printed matter may constitute a means whereby a boycott is unlawfully continued, and their use for such purpose may amount to a violation of the order of injunction. Reynolds v. Davis, 198 Massachusetts, 300; Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Massachusetts, 212; Codman v. Crocker, 203 Massachusetts, 150; Brown v. Jacobs, 115 Georgia, 452, 431; Gray v. Council, 91 Minnesota, 171; Lohse Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Missouri, 421, 472; Thomas v. Railroad Co., 62 Fed. Rep. 803, 821; Continental Co. v. Board of Underwriters, 67 Fed. Rep. 310; Beck v. Teamsters' Union, 118 Michigan, 527; Pratt Food Co. v. Bird, 148 Michigan, 632; Barr v. Essex, 53 N. J. Eq. 102. See also Ludwig v. Western Union Telegraph While the bill in this case alleged that complainant's interstate business was restrained, no relief was asked under the provisions of the Sherman anti-trust act. But if the contention be sound that no court under any circumstances can enjoin a boycott if spoken words or printed matter were used as one of the instrumentalities by which it was made effective, then it could not do so, even if interstate commerce was restrained by means of a blacklist, boycott or printed device to accomplish its purpose. And this, too, notwithstanding § 4 (act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209) of that act provides, that where such commerce is unlawfully restrained it shall be the duty of the Attorney General to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and enjoin violations of the statute. In Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, the statute was held to apply to any unlawful combination resulting in restraint of interstate commerce. In that case the damages sued for were occasioned by acts which, among other things, I did include the circulation of advertisements. But the principle announced by the court was general. It covered any illegal means by which interstate commerce is restrained, whether by unlawful combinations of capital, or unlawful combinations of labor; and we think also whether the restraint be occasioned by unlawful contracts, trusts, pooling arrangements, blacklists, boycotts, coercion, threats, intimidation, and whether these be made effective, in whole or in part, by acts, words or printed matter. The court's protective and restraining powers extend to every device whereby property is irreparably damaged or commerce is illegally restrained. To hold that the ン restraint of trade under the Sherman anti-trust act, or on general principles of law, could be enjoined, but that the means through which the restraint was accomplished could not be enjoined would be to render the law impotent. Society itself is an organization and does not object to organizations for social, religious, business and all legal purposes. The law, therefore, recognizes the right of workingmen to unite and to invite others to join their ranks, thereby making available the strength, influence and power that come from such association. By virtue of this right, powerful labor unions have been organized. But the very fact that it is lawful to form these bodies, with multitudes of members, means that they have thereby acquired a vast power, in the presence of which the individual may be helpless. This power, when unlawfully used against one, cannot be met, except by his purchasing peace at the cost of submitting to terms which involve the sacrifice of rights protected by the Constitution; or by standing on such rights and appealing to the preventive powers of a court of equity. When such appeal is made it is the duty of government to protect the one against the many as well as the many against the one. In the case of an unlawful conspiracy, the agreement to act in concert when the signal is published, gives the words "Unfair," "We don't patronize," or similar expressions, a force not inhering in the words themselves, and therefore exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have. Under such circumstances they become what have been called "verbal acts," and as much subject to injunction as the use of any other force whereby property is unlawfully damaged. When the facts in such cases warrant it, a court having jurisdiction of the parties and subject-matter has power to grant an injunction. Passing then to the consideration of the question as to whether the defendants disobeyed the injunction and were |