The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1894-07-24
ceedings.

CHICAGO, July 23-What is considered
by labor leaders 10 be one of the most i'm
pOrtsnt legal battles in the nations his
tory was begun il the United States court
today, when the American Railway union
Officers, now under arrest, filed their aus
wer 10 the contempt rule issued by the
court against them last week and came
themselves into court to make return OF
the writ. The defense proposes 10 carry
The case 20 the supreme court Of the Unit
ed es in the event OF an adverse decis
ion here, and II defeated there to appeal
through congress TO the people. Tue de-
Tense will follow closely the line Of the re-
port of the Boatner committee of congress,
which investigated the injunction aud
contempt proceeding by Judge Jenkins.
The labor organizations throughout the
country will contribute mOuey 10 defray
the expenses of this struggle.
The answer, which was formulated by
Attorneys W. W. Erwin OF st. PAM, aud
:. ). Gregory of Chicago. is very lengthy.
The defendants deny that IL was at any
time the purpose and object OF the Ameri-
can Railway union, or of The officers or
directors thereof, to concentrate he power
AID jurisdiction of the union under one
power TO order strike er discoutinuauce
of the service of such employees a. any time
the lard of directors of tie American
Railway union should elect TO DO SO, as
alleged in said Information, and they
ailege that by organization Of the said
union, strikes could only be declared or
discontinued by vote of u majority Of the
membe of such American Railway
union employees in tn service affected by
any such strike and that the only power,
authority or Oflics of said officers or
directors Of said American Railway union
or of these detrudduis or either of them 10
respect TO said matter was t. notify he
members of said Americ ,n Railway union
in the service concerned IN said strike, of
the action taken by such majority.
The strike on the IlilLOS Central,
ordered June ~, they claim. was not
brought about by the American Railway
union. rs charged in the indictment, but
by voluntary action of the employees them
selves, aud referring TO Other strikes the
defendants fur her deny that employees so
leaving the service of the railway com
panies did so for the purpos- of hinderIng,
preventing aud delaying said railway com
panies in the operation OF trains engaged
in the transportation OF mails and in-
terstate commerce. The defendants
admit up to the time of arrest to have been
engaged in forming new unions on he dif-
fereut railways of the Country but ''ex-
pressly deny that the organization Of said
unions was intended TO coufer, or did con-
fer upon said American Railway union
its officers or directors, the power and au-
thorHy to order strikes upon said roads,
but on the contrary alleges that strikes
could only be ordered upon said roads by
the employees themselves, and that such
were in no manner subject To
the authority or control Of said union. its
oific r or directors. They deny that or
ders to strike were at any time or in any
manner communicated By the union, its
officers or directors. TO SaiG: local unions,
or any of them as alleged in the informa-
tiOu.
Deny that the employees OF any road by
threats inuimidaJed or otherwise, were
made 70 leave the service Of the railways
or cause interruption 10 mails OF COM
merce snd deny that any members OF said
American Railway union IN any manner
par icipated IN said acts Of violence or any
of them.
"At no time were acts of violence al
vlsed, encouraged or directed. On the cou-
trAry, they consulted and advised all mem
bers TO abstain from violence, threats and
aud to at all times respect
tue law ami officers thereof"
The answer makes other sweeping aud
more specific denial of the charges.
against the prisoners by the distr CT attor-
ney and the hearing OF the answer a. read
by the Defendants lawyer, Attorney En-
win moved formally that the defendants
be dismissed. de also asked that the gov
eminent elect whether it would toy the
prisoners on the original Indictment or on
the Injunction. Judge Woods replied the
on now and Attorney Gregory be-
gan his argument IN support Of
the motion 10 dismiss tue bill !
Mr.. Gregory said the inilnc ion re-
strained tue defendants from preventing
the employees by threats, Intimidation, /
force, violence or persuasion from perform I
ing their duties, or inducing tEem " /
threats. violence, force or intimidation, +
TO leave the service of the rOa ;. la the /.
iUluncIiOnal order the word persuasion" 1
was stricken out. This called out a state {
ment from Judge WOOis, who said the /.
court had refused to uJ1In men from IN (
duciug other men TO leave their work. (
The question IS now la the court Of ap-
peals Ia the Northern Pacific case and the /.
court had no desire 10 interfere with il. .
Mr.. Gregory said the injunction did not (
euj0in the leaders OF the union from al I.
visinZ men TO quit work. The iuJunc- R
ton" said Judge IS GODS was "A general !
order not l. i IT ere Wit tie opera IOQ Of T.
the rIads. " Letuer advising was an III 4
= = question 10 De AecttAcil-
The attorney coutended that a. long as
people obey the laws they could not b.
held responsible for the lawl-ssness Of i
others. He admitted there was viJlence !
IN the recent strike aud the men who 1
Committed X We're guilty Of violating the I
The people who advised I.
violence were also guilty, b1t there was
not a line in the Information that the de !
either committed Or advised any 4
violent VuHf-- f,ruzsruu z4fi
theory Of the government was thai .
violence was tGe natural consequence ~ I
the uelegraDbic orders sent QUE by tie /
defendants
Mr. Gregory was followed By NJ. i
" alker for tile prosecution. whO attacked 4
the answer vigorously.
A. tn conclusion OF MT. Walkers ar2u- I
mem, c1ur; adjourned NATL tomorrow I
morning. WHEN attorney joan : Miller. j
who represents the santa r, viii sPsAS 4
OF The prosecution.