Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/252

 240 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �utes, taken from the act of March 2, 1831, c. 99, and prior acts of congress, have prescribed the mode of punishment, and directed that it shall be by fine or imprisonment, and this operates as a negation of ail other modes of punishment. Contempts may also be punished by information or indict- ment, in which case the punishment is limited to a fine of not more than $500, or imprisonment not more than three months. Rev. St. §§ 725, 5399; 4 St. 488; Ex parte Robin- son, 19 Wall. 605 ; 2 Bish. Cr. L. § 267. �It is constant .praetice to punish corporations where, they are amenable to the criminal law, by fine. Mr. Bishop says that although "a corporation cannot be hung, there is no reason why it may not be fined for the same act which would subject an individual to the gallows." 1 Bish. Cr. L. (6th Ed.) § 423. It is usual, in contempt proceedings, to arraign the individual agents, and that is the better way, perhaps, where it oan be done and is effectuai; but, although I have found no case imposing a fine on the corporation itself, and diligent counsel say they find none, I do not hesitate to hold that it can be done, and should be in proper cases. Here the head- quarters are in an adjoining state, where the parties — who- ever they were — directing a violation of this injunction reside, and I am not satisfied that our authority is vindicated by the fines imposed for their individual offence upon the compara- tively innocent young men who are the subordinate agents in the execution of orders for which the corporation itself is fairly responsible. It is here by service of notice in a manner that would be amply sufficient to give this court jurisdiction to render a money decree in a civil suit, and, moreover, have appeared formally and answered the rule. The corporation itself is therefore fined the sum of $250, and the costs of this proceeding. �I have taken into consideration the mitigating circum- stance that the injunction imposed a restriction as to rates which was not authorized by law; the published act of assem- bly of the state of Arkansas, upon the authority of which the injunction was granted, having turned out to be not a valid law, it not having been in fact enacted in both houses of the ��� �