Before STALEY and HASTIE, Circuit Judges, and SORG, District Judge.
Occasionally a litigant will request the court to overturn an apparently wellsettled principle of law which he finds as an insurmountable barrier in the path of the proposition he seeks to have established. This is such a case. Appellants argue that the district court abused its discretion by allowing as costs in a civil contempt proceeding the expenses incurred by the National Labor Relations Board in connection with the prosecution of appellants for civil contempt, including salaries, travel expenses, and costs of investigation, preparation, presentation, and final disposition of the proceedings - and this argument is made in the face of our decision in N.L.R.B. v. Star Metal Mfg. Co., 3 Cir., 1951, 187 F.2d 856, holding that just such expenses of the Board are properly taxable as costs.
These contempt proceedings arise from the following factual background. Upon petition by the National Labor Relations Board, the district court on May 5, 1954, enjoined Local 420 from engaging in certain work stoppages in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b)(4)(D). The injunction order was affirmed by this court on January 10, 1955. 3 Cir., 218 F.2d 476.Thereafter, on June 15, 1955, the district court adjudged appellants in civil and criminal contempt for engaging in work stoppages in willful disregard of the original injunction order. On March 6, 1956, this court affirmed the action of the district court. 3 Cir., 230 F.2d 572. The Supreme Court denied appellants' petition for certiorari on October 8, 1956. 352 U.S. 825, 77 S. Ct. 37, 1 L. Ed. 2d 48.
After the denial of certiorari, the district court rendered its decision granting the costs claimed by the Board. D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 148 F.Supp. 704, 706. This appeal was taken from the order entered pursuant to that decision and assessing the following items as costs:
"1.Reporter's charge for copy of transcript
of testimony adduced at trial before the
District Court, which was required in connection
with respondents' appeal from the contempt
"2. Cost of printing brief on appeal 160.22
"3. Amount of salaries for time spent by Board
attorneys from Washington,D.C.