Cases - 1910 term

Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Company

Fri, 27 Jan 1911 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

372

Petitioner

Gompers

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Buck's Stove & Range Company

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1911)

Decided By

White Court (1911)

Opinion

221 U.S. 418 (1911)

Argued

Friday, January 27, 1911

Decided

Monday, May 15, 1911

Facts of the Case

Samuel Gompers and two other labor leaders were convicted of violating an antiboycott injunction. The American Federation of Labor (headed by Gompers) had run a notice in its magazine listing Buck's Stove & Range Company along with other companies under the heading "We Don't Patronize."

Question

Does the injunction abridge free speech and press?

Conclusion

The Court refused to reexamine the validity of the injunction issued by the lower court. However, the convictions were reversed on the ground that the contempts were civil but the lower court had treated them as criminal in nature. The aim of civil contempt is remediation while the purpose of crminal contempt is punitive.

Bailey v. Alabama

Thu, 20 Oct 1910 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

300

Petitioner

Bailey

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Interim Court (1910)

Decided By

White Court (1910-1911)

Opinion

219 U.S. 219 (1911)

Argued

Thursday, October 20, 1910

Decided

Tuesday, January 3, 1911

Facts of the Case

Bailey contracted to work on a farm for a year at $12 a month. He quit after a month and did not return $15 advanced to him. Under Alabama law, Bailey's act was criminal. He was convicted and sentenced to 136 days of hard labor under the Alabama peonage law.

Question

Did the Alabama law violate the Thirteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

The Court, through Hughes, argued that the law was a restriction on personal rights. Judged by its effect and not by its pretense, the law violated the Thirteenth Amendment. Involuntary servitude meant more than slavery.

Coyle v. Smith

Wed, 05 Apr 1911 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Congress

Constitution and Delaware Street Washington D.C. 20002

Washington 20002

United States

38° 53' 31.1496" N, 77° 0' 29.1744" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

941

Petitioner

Coyle

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Smith

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

White Court (1911)

Decided By

White Court (1911)

Opinion

221 U.S. 559 (1911)

Argued

Wednesday, April 5, 1911

Decided

Monday, May 29, 1911

Facts of the Case

In 1910, Oklahoma enacted a law moving its state capital from Guthrie to Oklahoma City. In admitting Oklahoma to the Union, the Congress declared the temporary capital to be Briscoe and that a change to some other location would not occur until 1913.

Question

Does Oklahoma have the power to locate its seat of government when Congress has imposed conditions limiting that location?

Conclusion

Yes. This was congressional overreaching. States are on an equal footing to determine their own location for the seat of government.

Muskrat v. United States

jgoldman — Wed, 30 Nov 1910 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Indian Territory OK

United States

35° 0' 27.9072" N, 97° 5' 34.3572" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

330

Appellant

David Muskrat and J. Henry Dick

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

United States

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

No. 331, William Brown and Levi B. Gritts v. United States

Heard By

White Court (1910-1911)

Decided By

Interim Court (1910)

Opinion

219 U.S. 346 (1911)

Argued

Wednesday, November 30, 1910

Decided

Monday, January 23, 1911

Advocates

Daniel B. Henderson (argued the cause for the appellants)

John J. Hemphill (argued the cause for the appellants)

William H. Robeson (argued the cause for the appellants)

Frank J. Boudinot (argued the cause for the appellants)

Wade H. Ellis (argued the cause for the appellees)

Henry E. Colton (argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

An Act of Congress in 1902 alloted land to Cherokee Indians, including David Muskrat and Henry Dick. Congress passed acts in 1904 and 1906 that limited the rights that Indians on the land could exercise over it. Some Cherokees already on the land contended that this act had the potential to unconstitutionally deprive them of their property. Congress passed an act in 1907 granting federal courts the jurisdiction to hear cases from Indians contesting the constitutionality of the 1904 and 1906 acts. Under this act, Muskrat and Dick filed suit in the Court of Claims and appealed to the Supreme Court.

Question

Can Congress authorize matters for judicial review that are not "cases" or "controversies"?

Conclusion

No. Justice William R. Day delivered the opinion for a 7-0 court. The Court ruled that Congress could not create jurisdiction for judicial review of a specific matter by way of legislation. This is because "the right to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional could only be exercised when a proper case between opposing parties was submitted for judicial determination." The Constitution granted the judiciary the power to decide "cases" and "controversies," but did not grant a "general veto power...upon the legislation of Congress."