The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1894-05-05
THE 'WEALERS In COURT.
The Trial Of Cozey, Browne and
christopher Columbus Jones.
POPULIST PENCE, THE SENATOR,
THEIR COUNSEL.

Populist Allen Also Has Word to Say
The Forenoon Session Spent in an
Effort to Clear the Crusaders on Legal
Points, Including the Question of the
Constitutionality of the Law-The
Complaint Amended
Washington, May 4.-Jacob S. Coxey, COM
mander of the Commonweal Army of Christ,
Carl Browne it's chic marshal, and Christie
pher Columbus Jones, leader of the Phila-
del2hia contingent of the Army of Peace.
were tried in the City Police court today on
a charge of violating the United States
statutes in unlawfully displaying banner
in the Capitol grounds and in breaking
shrubs and plants there.
Andrew Lisc omb, who had been retained
by the defendants, opened the case by Hing
a motion to quash the information against
the defendants on the ground that the law
under which they were charged was void in
that it prohibited the constitutional right of
petition for redress of grievance and con-
ferred on the Speaker of the House and
President of the Senate certain prerogatives
contrary to the Constitution.
Alexander Mullowney, assistant United
States district attorney, fled an amended
information which charged Coxey, Browne
and Jones with simply stepping upon the
turf in the Capitol grounds, instead of in
juring shrubs and plants, in addition to the
main charge of carrying a banner into the
Capitol reservation. Mr.. Mullowney told
the court that Mr.. A. A. Binney, United
States district attorney would represent
the government and a minute later he
entered, followed by Citizen Coxey.
Samuel Hyman, who appeared for Browne
and Jones, filed motion to quash the case
on the grounds that the information was
had in substance. This occasioned
spirited discussion on the question whether
the two statutes in regard to trespass on
the Capitol grounds were not conflicting.
1t was held by the defense that the police
court had no jurisdiction in such matter.
In behalf of the defence, their attorney said
that it was not forbidden to do the things
charged in the information even in the
District of Columbia.
Senator Allen said he did not appear as
an attorney, but merely for the purpose of
seeing that the men on trial had fair
hearing which he was sure would be ac-
corded them. He held that the law under
which the information was charged was un-
constitutional. The power to assemble and
petition Congress for the redress of
grievances carried with it the irresistible
implication that it was right to do SO at the
seat of the government. Could they as
semble and present petition to Congress
by staying in Pennsylvania or anywhere
else. "Now I want to know" Mr.. Allen
said, "where the line of demarcation is
Judge Miller interrupted Senator Allen to
say that no man who was a citizen of the
United States failed to recognize that he
had right to petition Congress for what
ever grievance he might have but it de-
pended upon the manner in which, petition
was presented, and the laws were clearly
against such an assemblage in the Capitol
grounds.
Senator Allen continued by contending
that, as the people who assemble did not
obstruct the highways, SO long as they did
not undertake to enter the halls of Con-
gress the courts were powerless to interfere.
After Mr.. Liscomb had been heard also
for the defence, Judge Miller said that if
Congress had the right to prevent a body
of men from entering the Senate chamber
to prevent their grievance, they certainly
had the same right to say whether the.same
body should enter the Capitol grounds. The
arguments by the counsel for the defense
were perversion and a subterfuge, and
should receive no serious attention. The
invasion of the Capitol grounds was gross
violation of the police regulations made to
carry out the law of Congress. The right to
petition was not germaine to the issue,
which was whether the laws OF regulations
for the protection of the Capitol grounds
had been violated by Coxey.