on.

Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 537, 538, 45 S. Ct. 390, 69 L. Ed. 767, is relied upThere, we declared: "Due process of law, therefore, in the prosecution of contempt, except of that committed in open court, requires that the accused should be advised of the charges and have a reasonable opportunity to meet them by way of defense or explanation. We think this includes the assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses to give testimony, relevant either to the issue of complete exculpation or in extenuation of the offense and in mitigation of the penalty to be imposed.

In cases like this, where the intention with which acts of contempt have been committed must necessarily and properly have an important bearing on the degree of guilt and the penalty which should be imposed, the court can not exclude evidence in mitigation."

By this language we did not intend to lay down any new or hard and fast rule concerning evidence to be heard in mitigation in proceedings for contempt; and certainly there was no purpose to restrict the discretion of *767

the trial judge in such cases more narrowly than in ordinary criminal trials. See Wharton's Criminal Procedure (10th Ed.) § 1890. Moreover, the conscious purpose of Cooke was regarded as an essential element of the offense charged.

Always the language used in an opinion must be read in the light of the issues presented. Cooke was not accorded due opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to state the facts which might excuse or mitigate his conduct, and the words quoted were addressed to that situation. Here there was abundant opportunity for presentation of anything really important.

Under the circumstances here disclosed, to hear the many witnesses offered by counsel would have required unnecessary and intoler

able extension of the long drawn out trial without material benefit. The answers relied or might have relied upon the knowledge possessed by appellants. By short affidavit or verbal statement any appellant could have advised the court again concerning facts within his knowledge, his beliefs, or general state of mind-matters which might possibly affect the degree of guilt.

The exclusion of some other evidence is assigned as error; but we think the claim is without merit and demands no extended comment.

Objections are offered to the admission of certain evidence. In answer, we need only refer to what was said in United States v. King, 7 How. 833, 854, 855 (12 L. Ed. 934): "In some unimportant particulars, the evidence objected to was not admissible. But where the court decides the fact and the law without the intervention of a jury, the admission of illegal testimony, even if material, is not of itself a ground for reversing the judgment, nor is it properly the subject of a bill of exceptions. If evidence appears to have been improperly admitted, the appellate court will reject it, and proceed to decide the case as if it was not in the record."

*768

*Considering the whole record, we think appellants had a patient hearing upon adequately defined issues, with abundant opportunity to put forward all proper defenses and explanations. With the exception already stated, there is ample evidence to support the judgment; the punishments imposed are not excessive; the court kept within the limits of its reasonable discretion and did nothing which injuriously affected the substantial rights of the parties. Judicial Code, § 269; U. S. Code, title 28, § 391 (28 USCA § 391).

The judgment as to William J. Burns must be reversed; as to the other appellants it is affirmed.

Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration or determination of this cause.

No. 14, original. The STATE OF COLORADO, complainant, v. The STATE OF KANSAS et al. May 20, 1929. Messrs. Wm. L. Boatright, Ralph L. Carr, James G. Rogers, and Henry A. Dubbs, all of Denver, Colo., Fred A. Sabin, of Pueblo, Colo., and Platt Rogers, of Denver, Colo., for complainant. Messrs. Wm. A. Smith and John G. Egan, both of Topeka, Kan., Chester I. Long, of Wichita, Kan., F. Dumont Smith, of Hutchinson, Kan., and Lawrence Lewis, of Denver, Colo., for defendants. The motion to make certain parties defendants in this cause is denied.

ATLANTIC

No. 19, original. Ex parte COAST RAILROAD COMPANY, petitioner. Messrs. F. B. Grier, of Greenwood, S. C., W. E. Kay, of Jacksonville, Fla., and Robert C. Alston, of Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

PER CURIAM. Upon examination of the returns to the rule to show cause, the Court finds that the reasons given by the respondent, the District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, that the case is likely to become moot, are not sufficient to justify his failure, immediately upon application, to call to his assistance, to hear and determine the application, two other judges, in accord with the provisions for direct review by this Court of the District Court, under section 4 of 238 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 936 (28 USCA § 345). See Virginian

Ry. v. The United States, 272 U. S. 658, 672, 47 S. Ct. 222, 71 L. Ed. 463. And the rule against the respondent is made absolute, and directed to be certified to him for due observance thereof. We assume it will not be necessary to issue a formal writ.

6

(279 U. S. 832)

No. 718. INTERNATIONAL SHOE COMPANY, petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 29 F. (2d) 518. Messrs. Frank Y. Gladney, R. E. Blake, J. D. Williamson, and Charles Nagel, all of St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner. Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Alfred A. Wheat, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., Robert E. Healy, Chief Counsel, for Federal Trade Commission, and Adrien F. Busick, Asst. Chief Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., Gardner P. Lloyd, Special Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Baldwin B. Bane, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. The petition for a rehearing in this case is granted. The order heretofore issued (279 U. S. 849, 49 S. Ct. 346, 73 L. Ed. -) denying the petition for a writ of certiorari is revoked and the writ is ordered to issue.

No. 746. SUPERIOR CONFECTION COM

PANY, appellant, v. John B. CRAIG, Sheriff of Pickens County, Chief of Police of the City of Pickens, et al.; and

No. 747. A. R. KISER, appellant, v. T. A. HEISE, Sheriff of Richland County, John W. Richardson, Chief Constable, et al. May 20, 1929. Appeals from the Supreme Court of the State of South Carolina. For opinion below, see 148 S. E. 66. Mr. Joseph A. Tolbert, of Greenville, S. C., for appellant.

PER CURIAM. The appeals are dismissed on the authority of section 237(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of February 13, 1925 (43 Stat. 936, 937; USCA § 344(a), for lack of jurisdiction. Treating the appeals as applications for certiorari, the same are denied. The motions for a rule to show cause and for the enforcement of the order of supersedeas are therefore also denied.

TRIC COMPANY and Chelan County, Washington. May 20, 1929. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. For opinion below, see 268 P. 1040. Messrs. O. P. Barrows, John W. Hanna, Frank Reeves, and L. J. Gemmill, all of Wenatchee, Wash., for appellants.

PER CURIAM. The return to the rule to show cause is held insufficient and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 32 S. Ct. 704, 56 L. Ed. 1205; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 S. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 36 S. Ct. 97, 60 L. Ed.

186.

(279 U. S. 824)

No. 759. L. J. TEFFT, appellant, v. T. T. GRANT, as Receiver, R. W. Elsom, H. L. Stewart, et al., etc. May 20, 1929. Appeal from the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. For opinion below, see Elsom v. Tefft, 148 Wash. 195, 268 P. 177. Mr. L. J. Tefft, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM. The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial Federal question on the authority of Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 569, 32 S. Ct. 704, 56 L. Ed. 1205; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 720, 34 S. Ct. 892, 58 L. Ed. 1557; Norton v. Whiteside, 239 U. S. 144, 147, 36 S. Ct. 97, 60 L. Ed. 186.

No. 803. A. H. BULL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, as owner, etc., petitioner, v. J. H. HUDSON, Master and Bailee, et al.; and

No. 892. J. H. HUDSON, Master and Claimant of THE British Steamship "MANCHESTER MERCHANT," et al., etc., petitioners, v. A. H. BULL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, owner and claimant, etc. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 30 F. (2d) 923. Messrs. John W. Crandall, of New York City, Joseph W. Henderson, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Geo. Whitefield Betts, Jr., of New York City, for petitioner. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

No. 816. MACONDRAY & COMPANY, petitioner, v. W. R. GRACE & COMPANY. May 20. 1929. For opinion below, see 30 F. (2d) 647. Messrs. Louis T. Hengstler and Frederick W. Dorr, both of San Francisco, Cal. (Messrs. Andros, Hengstler & Dorr, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for petitioner. Messrs. W. H. Orrick, and Orrick, Palmer & Dahlquist, all of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

No. 820. AUSTIN-BAGLEY CORPORATION, Waterloo Distilling Corporation, et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America; and

No. 831. Charles H. FINGERHOOD, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F. (2d) 229. Mr. Lewis Landes, of New York City, for petitioners Austin-Bagley Corp., and others. Mr. Louis Marshall, of New York City, for petitioner Fingerhood. Mr. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and John J. Byrne, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

No. 811. TRENT TRUST COMPANY, Limited, petitioner, v. Carl H. W. ISENBERG, Hans O. C. Isenberg, Helen Zur Helle, et al., etc. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 26 F. (2d) 609, 31 F. (2d) 553. Messrs. Oscar Lawler, Los Angeles, Cal., and Oscar Sutro, and Alfred Sutro, both of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Messrs. John Francis Neylan and Grove J. Fink, both of San Francisco, Cal., for respondents. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

The UNITED STATES of America. May 20, No. 823. William (Bill) DAY, petitioner, v. 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F. (2d) 71. Mr. Will Steel, of Texarkana, Ark., for petitioner. Mr. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Gen., and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat, Gardner P. Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Lloyd, Barham R. Gary, Sp. Assts. to Atty.

Gen., for the United States. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

(279 U. S. 864)

No. 825. Cornelius ANDERSON, suing on behalf of Himself and all other seamen, etc., petitioner, v. SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST et al. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F.(2d) 539. Mr. H. W. Hutton, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Messrs. Herman Phleger and Maurice E. Harrison, both of San Francisco, Cal. (Mr. George O. Bahrs, of San Francisco, Cal., of counsel), for respondents. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

No. 827. KEHOTA MINING COMPANY, petitioner, v. D. B. HEINER, Collector of Internal Revenue, etc.; and

No. 828. KEHOTA MINING COMPANY, petitioner, v. C. G. LEWELLYN, formerly Collector of Internal Revenue, etc. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 30 F. (2d) 817. Messrs. Edwin W. Smith, William A. Seifert, and Maynard Teall, all of Pittsburgh, Pa. (Mr. Hale Hill, of Pittsburgh, Pa., of counsel), for petitioner. Mr. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Helen R. Carloss, of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., and Morton P. Fisher, of Baltimore, Md., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

No. 836. Thomas J. O'NEILL, petitioner, v. Catherine GRAY, as Administratrix of the goods, chattels, etc. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 30 F. (2d) 776. Mr. Charles D. Lewis, of White Plains, N. Y., for petitioner. Messrs. Strongman & Ward, of New York City (Messrs. Karl W. Kirchwey and Irving M. Engel, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.

No. 829. PERE MARQUETTE RAILWAY COMPANY, petitioner, v. Joseph N. RUSSELL. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 223 N. W. 230. Messrs. W. K. Williams and John C. Shields, both of Detroit, Mich., and George W. Weadock, Vincent Weadock, Jerome Weadock, and Arthur Weadock, all of Saginaw, Mich., for petitioner. Messrs. Miles J. Purcell and Frank A. Picard, both of Saginaw, Mich., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan denied.

No. 837. Charles HASS, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F.(2d) 13. Mr. Frank J. Hennessy, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner. Messrs. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., O. R. Luhring, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Alfred A. Wheat, Special Assistant to Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Ridgely, of Washington, D. C., for the United States. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

(279 U. S. 866) No. 840. ESTATE OF John W. BILLWILLER, by Charles J. Billwiller, Resident Agent, petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F. (2d) 286. Messrs. Henry J. Richardson and L. L. Hamby, both of Washington, D. C. (Mr. Franklin Lockwood, of New York City, of counsel), for petitioner. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat and John Vaughan Groner, Special Assistants to Atty. Gen., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for

the Second Circuit denied.

Mr.

No. 844. M. F. TILLITSON, doing business as the Tillitson Specialty Company, petitioner, v. William A. SMITH, as Attorney General of the State of Kansas. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 29 F. (2d) 535. Messrs. Hal. M. Black and Arnold C. Todd, both of Wichita, Kan., for petitioner. Messrs. William A. Smith, Atty. Gen., and Roland Boynton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.

No. 852. Elmer GIBSON, petitioner, v. The UNITED STATES of America; and

No. 859. Oswald A. (Red) BROWER, Carl Adams, et al., petitioners, v. The UNITED STATES of America. May 20, 1929. For opinMessrs. Nelson ion below, see 31 F. (2d) 19. T. Hartson and Edmund L. Jones, both of Washington, D. C., and Maurice A. Langhorne, of TaMessrs. coma, Wash., for petitioner Gibson. Rufus W. Pearson, of Washington, D. C., A. Emerson Cross, of Seattle, Wash., and W. W. Mount, of Tacoma, Wash., for petitioners Brower and others. Mr. William D. Mitchell, Atty. Gen., Mrs. Mabel Walker Willebrandt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Messrs. Alfred A. Wheat and Barham R. Gary, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen., for the United States. Petitions for writs of certio

rari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

No. 871. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, petitioner, v. MARSHALL & ILLSLEY BANK, executor of the ESTATE OF Arthur H. FLEET, deceased. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 147 S. E. 468. Messrs. W. W. Martin and Henry R. Miller, Jr., both of Richmond, Va., for petitioner. Messrs. Oscar L. Shewmake and J. Vaughan Gary, both of Richmond, Va., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of Virginia denied.

No. 872. William J. LARKIN and Henry Larkin, petitioners, v. WASHINGTON LOAN & TRUST COMPANY. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 31 F. (2d) 635. Mr. Paul Sleman, of Washington, D. C. (Messrs. William C. Preus, of Minneapolis, Minn., George A. Heisey, of St. Paul, Minn., and P. A. Wells, of Minneapolis, Minn., of counsel), for petitioners. Messrs. Arthur Peter, John J. Hamilton, Frank S. Bright, and R. Preston Shealey, all of Washington, D. C., for respondent. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia denied.

No. 873. Samuel W. GREEN and Ola B. Green, petitioners, y. ETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. May 20, 1929. For opinion below, see 30 F. (2d) 100. Mr. J. W. Cocke, of Waco, Tex., for petitioners. On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed further herein in forma pauperis is denied for the reason that the Court, upon examination of the unprinted record herein submitted, finds that there is no basis for certiorari, application for which is therefore also denied. The costs already incurred by direction of the Court shall