The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-13

of interruption of mails and interruption
and interference with interstate commerce;
that IL provoked comment ana mad greater
feeling, and in order that labor troubles
should be settled without interfering with
lions of innocent !" people it was determined
that the national government snouid clothe
its courts with power on the civil side to
crimes had been committed and then send
men to the penitentiary for the crimes SO
committed. That is the reason of it 1T
was intended TO be a preventive remedy.
That was the sole purpose OF II. so lar as
this phase OF 1t is conSerne1 ~ Is true rue
fine of not more than 5000 and imprison-
far mT"' as ior the year civil Side Of it is con-
cerned ii was intended to meet an emeT-
ege ency not ana sue until a p the mails 1sdif been in.
terfered with, or until the OF the
country had been lawlessly stopped, but
it was not intended, in my judgment, In
order to invoke the Judgment and lurlsdlc-
tion of the court hat all of the old nicely
of pleading and practice OF the English
chancery courts should apply. The courts
would be powerless, If that were the case,
to accomplish the beneficent purpose of the
law; because it is a beneficent purpose: II
is a praiseforthy purpose. In the midst or
tumult and excitement, when laWlessnesS
seizes upon the arteries of the or
the Nation, for the courts of the land, in
their peaceable and orderly way, TO lay
their hands on these men and bid them
cease. 1t is a lawful thing, a commendable
thing. line law gives lHcUl llldl pONCl.
So much, then, on the question of ~jurisdic-
ton.
COURT HAD JURISDICTION.
az think that in this proceeding the
court Judge Woods. as judge of the Cir
cult CourD, had jurisdiction to issue this
writ. Now this party defendant is not
named. and to say now that process of in
junction may not be issued, to be binding
upon men who are not named, or shall not
be binding until they are actually served
with subpoena, as they are on the civil
side. on the equity side of the court, it
would defeat the purpose of the law. 1t is
not within the language OF the statute IT.
self. / have been asked TO hold mere that
so much of the order issued by Judge
Woods as enjOins unknown strikers, or
unknown parties
Mr.. McCullough-If the court will permit
me to interrupt-that is not my position, II
the court please. The point L make about
the affidavit is this: Neither the afidavlt
nor the bill, when taken together, snow
that this defendant ever combined or con-
spired with any one.
The CourtlThat is another question.
That / will come to further on. L thlnk
the Injunction as against unknown defend
ants is valid and binding when the in
junction order is served upon them, al
though they are not at that time parties
to the suit. Indeed. 1 think an injunction
that is issued against one man enjoining
or restraining him., and ali that give aid
and comfort to him, or all that aid and
abet him. is just as valid against every
body that aids or gives countenance to
his violating the injunction as it is against
the man to whom it is addressed. l don't
| entertain any doubt about tnat.
Now then, the court having decided
that ii thinks the Injunction was prop
| erly issued, and that If it was actually
served on this man as one of the I'M
known defendants, that the injunction
would be good, that brings us to the
question of the technical sufficiency of the
affidavit. because in this sort of proceed
ing in my Judgment it is not essential
that an information shall be filed, al
though there is no harm in doing that.
The essential thing is the filing of a state
ment or charge that shall show clearly
and distinctly that the restraining order
has been served on the defendant. or, If
it has not been served on him, that he
had notice or knowledge of its contents,
because 1T is not necessary I'm order that
an injunction shall be binding on a man
that he shall have ii read to him. If he
issued forbidding the doing of a ~particu-
lar act and, with knowledge of that fact,
however obtained; ne does the act he is
in contempt of the court.
THE INFORMATION FAULTY
"Now, in this case this information. I
think, lacks considerable of having the
certainty and precision that is essential.
1t is not alleged that this man was one
of the unknown parties that are referred
~ ~ S"S iiJNhStlOA. II ID A1Ob dlltStu IDdI
the restraining order was alIawful one
in the language of the statute. 1t does
not allege, and that is the most serious
thing. to my mind, that either by his
words or his acts he was engaged in aid
ing the common purpose or accomplishing
the common object with other members
of the American Railway Union. If what
this man did was not lone to give aid
or comfort or encouragement [. the object
4 or ArreStlnU fhR mails If III u-oc nv irIn
pendent crime the man was committing.
If he wanted to commit arson or robbery.
without having any connection with these
men that were engaged in the interruption
of commerce.. then he would not be within
the terms of the restraining order. nor
within the law which has been read here
charged, although il has been assumed all
the way through suppose the proof adj
duced would go to show that that he was
connected with the railway union, and that
his acts were acts that were calculated in
their nature TO give aid and comfort to the
strike that has been carried on. If those
facts were proved, why they would be
sufficient to satisfy the court that his
mind was acting in combination with the
minds of Debs and others, or that they
were engaged in the common purpose, and
hence that they were in the conspiracy
that is mentioned in the statute. provided
the things that they were trying to do
would naturally result in delaying or inter
rupting the mails or in delaying or inter
rupting the carriage of passengers and
freight from one State to another. l think
that in these particulars the affidavit is in
sufficient. | think the charge is sufficient
so far as showing that the court has juris-
diction to issue the writ when il is shown
by an affidavit that this man was engaged
in the combination or conspiracy with other
railroad men in aiding and assisting TO ar
rest the mails and interstate commerce. /
think the affidavit would show a cause OF
action against him, and then it would de-
pend upon the proof whether or not the
offense was made out. Do you desire to
amend?"
Mr.. Corr-Yes, we desire to amend the
affidavit and Information.
The Court-You may do that. This mat
ter may be postponed until 2 o'clock.