The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1894-08-09
GOVERNOR HOGGS "OMNIBUS
INJUNCTION"

INJUNCTION"
We have been twitted with the
boast that In our comments on GOV
ernor Hogg's speech at San Antonio
that we shielded our inability to an
swer the legal points made by MIN oy
n sneer at the folly of his argument
LET us see whether that is q just re-
proach or not. Governor Hogg said;
"A bout the only law under which the
color of authority for this can be
claimed is what is known as the
United States trust law passed In
1890, which is az follows: Every con-
tract or combination in the form OF a
trust or otherwise or conspiracy IN
restraint of trade or commerce
among the several states or with
foreign nations is hereby declared
illegal" Remember that Governor
Hogg has arraigned President Cieve'
land for sending General Miles to
Chicago to sustain the injunction OF
the court, which he was pleased to
term an "omnibus injunction"
This section of the antitrust law OF
1890 was the only law (and as far as
he is concerned he stated it as the only
antitrust law that the governor
knew anything about which authorl%
ed any such procedure of the court
or the sending of federal troops to the
scene of action and this law as
far as the governor quoted not only
constituted no crime, but prescribed
no penalty, nor did it give the court
authority to issue the injunction
Therefore Governor Hogg concludes
that Mr.. Cleveland was "backing this
court in violation of all laws in hav-
ing this omnibus injunction exc
cuted."
Let us repeat. Remember this anti.
trust law, as he would have you te-
lieve, or only this section, really, OF
the antitrust law, is the only law on
the subject that Governor Hogg knows
anything about, and which
he processes to have
quoted fully and on it he bases his
conclusion that Mr.. Cleveland was
illegally backing an illegal iDjunc'
ton.
Now, would you not bs very much
surprised that another section of that
same antitrust law gave the author
ity and prescribed the duties of the
court and that the court followed the
very letter of that section of the law
in issuing the injunction? We invite
your close attention to the fourth sec
ton of the antitrust law which reads
as follows, towit:
"Sec. The several circuit courts
of the United States are hereby in
vested with jurisdiction to proven
and restrain violations of this act
And it shall be the duty of the severa
district attorneys of the United State
in their respective districts to insti
tute proceedings in equity to proven
and restrain such violations. Sucl
proceedings may be by way of petit
ton, setting forth the case and pray
ling that such violation shall
be epioined or other wise prohibited
When the parties complained
of shall have been duly notified G
such petition, the court shall proCeet
as soon as may be to the hearing AM
determination of the case, and pend
ing such petition and before final de
cree, the court may at any time max
such temporary restraining order Q
prohibition as shall be deemed just i
the premises"
In the section that Governor Hog
quoted the crime is defined and in tn
section he failed TO quote, the juris
diction is given to the court and tn
remedy prescribed upon which tn
court acted. The Injunction ws
openly violated in retarding an
destroying mail trains and
, interfering with interstate commerC
and the United States marshals VIII
, were unable to project the mails {
assure the movement of interstst
commerce called upon the presider
OF the United states for troops TO al
them in doing SO, and the whole pre-
=