Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1894-12-15

bO-uhJ " ouoAaA uuSo UillAen -
Woods against President Eugene V.
Debs, Of the American Railway Union.
The same finding was reached against
the other American Railway Union
leaders on trial with Debs.
The cramped court room was crowded
20 overlooking when Judge Woods first
entered the court room aud took his seat
upon the bench. President Debs and
the other defendants were present and
Ga vrriouS attitudes OF anxious interest
listened to the read ng Of the decision.
With Judge Woods, Judge jenkins
occupied the bench, and many promin
ent attorneys were present TO hear the
outcome Of the proceedings against the
leader OF the great railway strikes OF
last Skinner.
Debs was sentenced to six months in
She county jail. The others on trial
WE'RE GIVEN THREE MONTHS EACH,
except McVane, who was released be-
cause there was no evidence against
him.
Judge Woods said: The question here
is whether the case presented by the
petition was OF class which in Fed
eral Circuit Court admits Of the remedy
by injunction.
Without going into the details OF
ayerment, the charge made against the
defendants was that they were engaged
in a conspiracy to hinder and interrupt
Interstate commerce and the carriage
OF the mails upon the railroads center
ing in Chicago by means, and In man
ner to constitute, within the rec0g nized
definitions, public nuisance.
A form OF public nuisance Of which
cOgnizance has been taken by the
courts OF equity in England and In this
country is called purpresture, which is
defined 10 be IAN sncroachment upon
land or rights and essem ent Incident
thereto belonging 10 the public and 10
which the public have a right to access
or Of enjoyment, and encroachment
upon navigabie streoms," 1.-The remedy
for a purpresture. simply, is by infor-
nation in equity at the suit OF the at
tOrney general or other proper officer"
But while the Jurisdiction OF the
English high court OF chancery and OF
the equity courts OF the several States
of the Union is not understood 10 be
disputed By counsel for the defendants,
they do insist that, in the absence Of
legislation BY Congress comforting the
authority, the federal courts can do
nothing for the protection Of the high
ways Of interstate commerce whether
on land or water.
IN REPLY TO THIS POSITION
OF the defense, reference is made to the
act 70 regulate commerce, as amended
by the act OF March ., 1SS9-25 U. 5.
Stat. S55-and IL Is contended that by
force Of the provisions Of that statute,
passed In exercise OF the power con-
ferred on Congress by the constitution,
ITO regulate commerce" "amOng the
several States, the national control has
been extended over the channels and
agencies of interstate commerce, in
GLIDING railroads as well as navigable
waters, and that out OF this legislation,
whatever had been the rule before, has
arisen by necessary implication, the
jurisdiction OF the Federal courts, in
accordance with the principles Of equity
TO protect that commerce against inter
ference or obstruction.
The right Of the federal government
TO obtain the Jurisdiction is also assert
GU uHUu hAu kAOuUA VI HAQpNAky TX w III
the mails To Searight vs.. Stokes,
How, Isl, the Supreme Court said:
The United States have unQuestiOna-
blv property in the mails. They are
not mere cummon carriers, but a gov
ernment, performing a high official
duty in holding and guarding its own
property as we'll as that Of It's citizens
committed 10 its care; for large pOr-
tion of the letters and packages con-
veyed on this road, especially during
the session OF Congress, consists OF COM
munications to or from the officers of
the executive department or members
OF the legislature on public service, or
in relation TO matters Of public con-
Germ"
The jurisdiction Of the courts OF
equity, and by Implication their right
20 punish FOR contempt, are established
bv the constitution, equally with the
right Of trial by jury, aud so long as
there Is no attempt TO extend jurisdiC-
tion over the subjects not properly cog
niZable 10 equity, there can be no ground
for the objection that the right OF jury
trial has been taken away. The same
act may constitute a contempt and a
crime. But the contempt is one thing,
the crime another and the punishment
for one is not a duplication of the pun
iShment for the other. The contempt
can be tried and punished only by the
court, while the charge of crime can be
tried only by jury.
RsFERhING To The CONTENTION
OF the defense that the act Of July .,
1890. is directed not az dangers from
force and violence, but from vast az
Eregations of capital, Judge Wood said
that such a restrictive construction was
impossible. The persistent efforts OF
the defendants, as the proof shows, was
20 force the railroad comprehensive
largest capitalists of the country-to
cooperate, or az least to acQuieSce, in a
scheme 70 stop the use of Pullman
sleeUers; and for a time they had the
agreement of a manager aud other off,
GERS OF one road 70 quit the use of the
obnoxious cars, and, perhaps, quail
fed submission OF the officers Of an
other road or two 70 the same dictation.
Does the guilt or innocence Of the de-
PENDANTS Of the charge OF conspiracy
under this statute depend on the proof
there may be OF their success in draw
ing 10 the support Of their design those
who may be called capitalists, or does
it depend Oh the character Of the de-
sign itself, and upon what has been
done toward its accomplishment by
themselves and by those in voluntary
cooperation with them, from whatever
employment or walk in life?
I have not failed, l think, to appreci-
ate the Just force Of the argument to