and producing a new and useful result, may be within the protection of the Federal statute, and entitle the inventor to a patent for his discovery.

We are of opinion that Golding's method was a substantial improvement of this character, independently of particular mechanisms for performing it, and the patent in suit is valid as exhibiting a process of a new and useful kind.

As to the infringement, little or no question was made in case No. 606. In case No. 66 the Circuit Court held that there was some evidence of infringement, enough at least to warrant the decree sustaining the patent and awarding an accounting. With this conclusion we agree. It follows that the decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (No. 66) should be reversed and that of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (No. 606) should be affirmed, and the cases remanded to the Circuit Courts of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Northern District of Ohio, respectively, for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Decrees accordingly.

UNITED STATES v. SHIPP.

INFORMATION IN CONTEMPT.

No. 5, Original. Argued March 2, 3, 1909.-Decided May 24, 1909.

T

The court, having already held, 203 U. S. 563, that the information sufficiently set forth a contempt of the court to punish which the court has jurisdiction, now finds on the testimony taken under its direction that certain of the defendants named were guilty of the contempt as charged and directs that attachments issue against them, and that the defendants not found guilty be discharged. Where a riot and the lawless acts of those engaged therein are the direct result of opposition to the administration of the law by this

τ

court, those who defy its mandate and participate in, or who knowingly fail to take the proper means within their official power and duty to prevent, acts of violence having for their object to, and which do, defeat the action of this court are guilty of, and must be punished for, contempt.

One, who after conviction by the state court has applied to the Federal court for his release on habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied due process of law is remanded by the Federal court to the custody of the sheriff to be detained for a specified time in which to enable him to prosecute an appeal to this court, is held under § 766, Rev. Stat., as a Federal prisoner and the sheriff is accountable to the Federal courts; and, to the extent of his power and the means under his control, he must exercise due diligence and reasonable efforts to protect the prisoner from mob violence, and if, after this court has granted an appeal, he negligently fails in his duty in this behalf, he is guilty of contempt.

Knowledge of an allowance by this court of an appeal and a stay of proceedings renders those who defy the mandate of the court and so conduct themselves as willfully to defeat the administration of the law liable for contempt.

This court having allowed an appeal from an order of a Circuit Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff to be held for a specified period for prosecution of the appeal, the sheriff and his deputies and the jailer, who had knowledge of such allowance of appeal and also of an intense feeling in the neighborhood against the prisoner which on previous occasions had threatened his safety, were bound to use all means within their power to protect him, and failure on their part to take any precautions whatever to prevent the seizure and killing of the prisoner at the hand of a mob attacking the jail while in a defenseless condition was, under the circumstances of this case, willful negligence, and disregard of duty to, and contempt of, this court; and so held as to the sheriff of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and his deputy and the jailer, in connection with the lynching on March, 19, 1906, of Ed Johnson by a mob after this court had allowed his appeal from an order refusing relief on habeas corpus.

Those of a mob who attack a state jail and lynch a person held therein as a Federal prisoner under an order of this court of which they have had notice are guilty of contempt of this court.

THE facts, which involve the lynching of a person held in the custody of a sheriff under an order of the Federal court

Argument for the United States.

214 U.S.

and after an appeal had been allowed by this court from an order of the United States Circuit Court denying his petition for habeas corpus, are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. Solicitor-General Hoyt, with whom Mr. Edwin W. Laurence, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief for the United States:

This is an information in contempt filed by the Attorney General of the United States charging the defendants with contempt of this court in lynching the negro Ed Johnson at Chattanooga on March 19, 1906, on the ground that he was at that time a prisoner in the jail under order of this court and that the lynching was in direct defiance of the known order of this court and to prevent the administration of the law by it.

The information appears at length, pages 439-444, post.

Certain preliminary questions of law were raised by defendants and passed upon by this court, 203 U. S. 563. It was there held that the complaint sufficiently set forth a contempt of this court; that it was immaterial for the purposes of this proceeding whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the habeas corpus proceedings or whether this court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and that the answers of the defendants under oath disavowing intent did not purge them. This decision removes from the case all questions of law except those as to the admission of evidence, The question now before the court is one of fact: Has the United States in the evidence, which has been taken by the commissioner under order of this court, proved the allegations of the information? Most of those allegations are established by agreement1 or undisputed evidence. The only issues are: (1) Were the sheriff and his deputies informed and did they have every reason to believe that an attempt would be made

1 This agreement appears at length at page 472, post.

214 U.S.

Argument for the United States.

in the evening of March 19, by a mob to break into, and take Johnson from, the jail for the purpose of lynching him? (2) Did the sheriff and his deputies commit acts and do things manifesting a purpose and disposition on their part to render it less difficult and less dangerous for the mob to lynch Johnson and aid and abet the mob? (3) Were defendants, excepting Shipp and Gibson, members of the mob which lynched Johnson, or did they participate in the conspiracy? (4) Did defendants in the things they did intend to show contempt of the order of this court and to prevent it from hearing Johnson's appeal? 1

The information alleges that the acts of the defendants were done with intent to show their contempt and utter disregard for the order of this court, and in order to prevent this court from hearing the appeal of Johnson then under condemnation of death and who had been remanded by the Circuit Court to the custody of the sheriff pending the action of this court which had granted the appeal. In delivering the opinion upon the hearing of the preliminary questions of law, 203 U. S. 563, Mr. Justice Holmes said:

"If the presence and acts should be proven, there would be little room for the disavowal of intent. It may be found that what created the mob and led to the crime was the unwillingness of its members to submit to the delay required for the appeal. From that to the intent to prevent that delay and the hearing of the appeal is a short step."

Intent is best proved, and in many cases can only be proved, by acts. If the acts with which defendants are charged have been proven, it needs no argument to demonstrate that defendants intended to prevent this court hearing Johnson's appeal and to delay its mandate. It has already been shown that the reason for the mob's action was fear of the law's delay and the unwillingness of the sheriff, his deputies, and the members of the mob to submit to it. The intent to commit

1 The Government's brief then reviews the testimony at length.

Argument for the United States.

214 U.S.

a contempt of this court was necessarily present in the acts of the defendants.

This proceeding is unique in the history of courts.

Its importance cannot be overestimated. Lynchings have occurred in defiance of state laws and state courts without attempt, or at most with only desultory attempt, to punish the lynchers. Perpetrators of such crimes have heretofore been censured only by public opinion; courts have remained silent. Powerful as such opinion always is, severe as it has been in its rebuke of such deeds, it has been inadequate to check these outbreaks of lawlessness. Only recently lynchings became so numerous that the whole country was aroused to earnest discussion of mob violence and a remedy for it. It is indeed useless to seek relief unless the judiciary can punish those who snatch and kill the men it has imprisoned. The arm of justice fetters men for years. It strikes death to the murderer. It can take property and life. Must it confess it is too weak to protect those whom it has confined? The arm can destroy. Can it not protect? If the life of one whom the law has taken into its custody is at the mercy of a mob the administration of justice becomes a mockery.

When this court granted a stay of execution upon application of Johnson, it became its duty to protect him until his case should be disposed of. It matters not with what crime he was charged. It is immaterial what the evidence was at the trial. Sentenced to death, Johnson came into this court alleging that his constitutional rights had been invaded in the trial of his case, and upon this the Supreme Court said he had a right to be, and would be, heard. From that moment until his case should be decided, he was under the protection of this court. And when its mandate, issued for his protection, is defied, punishment of those guilty of such contempt must be certain and severe.

Never in its history has an order of this court been disobeyed with impunity. A few attempts to disregard its decrees have been made, but always without ultimate avail. In 1779 the