The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-07-13
1T WAS SOUND LAW
JUDGE wOODs's RESTRAINING Or
DER BEFORE JUDGE BAKER.
Courts Oral Opinion I'm tho Case of
Striker AigIer-Testimony in
the Other Cases.

ductor, and James Moriarity, john BUCK
and r. A. Robuck. local agitators. were
arraigned in the United States Court yes
terday morning on the charge of contempt
of court. Aigler was arrested at Ashley
while trespassing upon the property of the
Wabash railway. Moriarity, Buck and Ro-
buck were put under arrest here. The
specific charge against them is the kill
ing OF a Panhadle engine at Palmer
street. near the hominy mills. AT the
opening OF court, yesterday morning, attor-
neys Mccullough and Span entered a mo-
ton to quash the afidavits and information
against the men on the ground that the in
Junction issued by Judge Woods was Illegal
and void. Judge Baker overruled the mo-
ton. and Mr.. Mccullough again motioned
TO quash, contending that the
and affidavits were not specifically full and
complete to maintain the suit. The court
granted that the information was not suffi-
cient and gave the district attOrne permits
sion to amend.
1T is well settled" said Judge Baker
in his oral opinion, that a restraining Or
der or injunction issued by a judicial tri-
bunal without jurisdiction of the subject
matter is coram non JUDGE and void. That
IS affirmed in all the books and affirmed in
the judgments of the Supreme Court of the
United States. that the counsel for the de-
PENDANT has called the attention of the
court to. Now the question whether or
not the Circuit Court of the United States
had jurisdiction requires an examination
of the statute for the purpose of determin-
authorized the court judicially TO take
cognizance of the sort of action that is
set forth in the petition or bill.
THE LAW OF 1890.
prior to the I'd day of July, 1890. it is
entirely clear that the United States, as a
municipal corporation, had no power either
by petition or bill to go into the courts of
equity of the United States and invoke the
aid of those courts by their restraining
power to prevent interference with the car
riage of the mails or with the carriage of
interstate commerce. Prior to that time the
sole remedy was on the criminal side of the
court. The sole method in which the United
States as a government could prosecute vio-
lators of the law who interfered with the
carriage of mails or interfered with the
instrumentalities used in the conduct of in
terstate was by indictment or
information on the criminal side of the
court Bat the growth Of RAILWAYS in this
country and the combinations of laborers
employed on those roads for the purpose
of enforcing by strikes or otherwise what
they conceived to be their just rights had
led to a condition OF things that In the
judgment of Congress made it imperative
that the courts of the United States-in
other words, that the Nation itself-for the
PNAI OSO u PAONCClAh6 NHt mans VI III
country and for the purpose of protecting
the passenger and freight traffic on inter-
state railroads, should have the right to
invoke not only the criminal jurisdiction
of the court by fines or by sending to the
pe%nitentiary those who were guilty Of Vio-
lations of those laws, but that the govern
power, or, rather, the courts OF the United
States should be clothed with the power,
of laying their strong hands on these men,
and. not waiting until crimes had been con-
Summated, but restraining. not for the pur-
pose of preventing people from doing what
ter wages, but for the purpose of saying
to everybody that civil liberty can't exist
where combinations of men undertake
by force and violence to arrest the peace
able and orderly conduct of business among
the States. With that view of national
duty on July 2, 1880, Congress enacted a
law that enlarged the jurisdiction of the
federal courts and authorized them to APP
he nIYrnose Of eheckinr and arresting All
lawless Interference with the peaceahle and
orderly carriage of mails and with. the
peaceable and orderly. conduct of railroad
business between the States. This law was
intended TO lay its strong hand not only
by combinations undertook to interfere
with the business and commerce of the
country and subject them to punishment,
but, on the other hand. it also undertook
to say to the laboring men of the country
that you shall not enforce your rights,
however just they may be, by violence and
by lawlessness.
TO PREVENT ANARCHY.
civil order cannot exist where men I'M
dertake by strong hand to enforce rights,
whatever their rights may be. In civilized
and organized society there is only one ave-
nue. that is alike open TO the rich and the
~poor-that is the avenue of the courts for
the purpose of settling disputes between
men. No man has a right, even though he
has been wronged, even though he may
have been oppressed, he has no right to
- a. L. 49,
force and terrorism or threats redress his
WrongS. Ii means revolution. 1t means all
archy. 1t means a condition of things that
would be absolutely intolerable in civilized
society, and 1T was in order that the
peaceable, and quiet. and orderly processes
are thus engaged, whether they mere mo-
nopolists on the one side or laboring men
on the other, for the purpose of arresting
ana bringing about that orderly and peace
ful condition, OF affairs that is essential
to the life and happiness of the community.
Now, there is no doubt. i'm my judg-
ment, that this act of July ? 1890, did
elothe the Circuit Court of the United
States with this new and enlarged power.
| That, however, does not answer the entire
contention of the counsel for the defense.
He insists that the affidavit and informa-
ton filed in this case does not reach and
bind the defendant as charged, because,
as he alleges, the bill does not contain a
authority, which is undoubtedly sound. that
a bill in equity without containing a prayer
/ " EiOCtSS ~ III Sildll CIlDplN TIE sdIHPS
of the defendants against whom process is
prayed would be demurrable. That is un-
doubtedly the law. That. however, does
not settle the question that is before the
| court. The question is whether or not
if an Injunction is issued by a court which
has power 10 issue the Injunction upon a
bill, provided the bill is not demurrable,
is the injunction void because on investi-
cation the court believes that a demurrer
had been interpOsed? In other words, does
a mere defect that could be, reached by
demurrer, in a bill of which the court has
jurisdiction, over viii h the court has
been given jurisdiction by the express
terms of the statute. is the injunction order
a nullity, and can il be treated with con-
tempt because the bill is defective so that
a demurrer might be sustained TO 1t? Or
that proDosition the court entertains no
doubt. There is not an authority, in the
judgment of the court, that can be found
OF nope-in which il has ever been held
that a man who was enjoined and had vio-
lated the Injunction could escape punish
ment by alleging that at the time the writ
OF injunction was issued the bill was de-
murrable."
Mr.. McCulIough-If the court will permit
the interruption, ] wasn't assuming that
at all. The view I had was that no action
was brought against anybody; there is no
fendant.
NEW STATUTORY RIGHT.
The Court-Op that point there is no
doubt but what a number of men are
named expressly by name, Eugene V.
Debs. Howard and some men here in this
-