Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-12-15
Judge Woods Tells Why He De-
clares So.
The IETIR5TATE COMMERCE LAW
Gave the Federal Courts Their Juris
diction,
Dcbs Given six Months and the Other
officers Three Months In Jnii---rhe
Prisoners Mere Happy aud smiled.
The Cases wtn he Appealed.

NVuoS ny ftutIal dulkt NNNua ehNHNN
Eugene Debs OF the American Railway
Union The same finding was reached
against the other A. II, U. leaders who
were on trial with pehs. The finding
of the court Is that the defendants
were guilty OF contempt but the pun
ishment inflicted must not be oumuia-
tive In other words there Were two
cases before court. one for contempt
and the other for the violation Of a
Federal statute, The latter case wan
merged into the former.
Deba was sentenced TO six months
In the county jail and the othnra ON
trial were given three months each,
except MeKane, who was released be-
cause there was no evidence against
him,
Attorney barrow, representing the
defendants. asked that his clients
might rctlre for a consultation regard
ing what they should say, ana uGer
q brief recess the strike leaders Il ed
back into court. ranging Themselves
before the bench.
Attorney barrow, speaking Tor thgm,
said chat they had no wisn to mako
NNIAAAhAN FlNNANhFl bhA wv AAAAA sN'f
had done no wrong. The attorney nd.
vacd the court that Director Macvoan,
one OF the defendants, wus ont Of the
city during the strike. A lengthy arg
ument between ntt0rncys followed over
the proposition TO discriminate in Mac
veans favor. which the court termi-
mated by suspending sentence on Mae
Ncan.
In sentencing tho other defendants
Judge Wood said that punishment
should be neither Nlndlctlye nor trivial,
The defendants did not appear greatly
crushed by the punishment, pebs
bowed his tall gaunt form and whisp-
cred a few words to his sister who
sat near, and they both laughed
heartily. Howard ana Hogan
exchanged smiles and glances and keli-
her graspcd lilo attornoy'a hand and
appeared TO offer concentrations u
waa evident that all had expected much
more severe sentences and all wore a
look OF relief Dcba drew his people
togcther and Instructed them TO ray
nothing for the public, setting them
an example by refusing To discuss the
case at NIL.
After The murinur OF excitement over
thc sentences hai AtsAide1 Go ~ B
announced that the puniahtn9nt was
not to take effect for ten days In
which time the defcndants' attorney
viii prepare an appeal, Tho pros
pectivc prisoners after n short con-
sultation with their attorneys left the
court room. Judge Woods opinion 10
as followsi
II the case presented were itself OF
less moment, the very great Import.
anoe OF some OF the questions involved
could not he overlooked
While tho principles considered are
not new IN the question Of the validity
Of the injunction. which tho DESCENDANTS
ore charged with Violating there are
involved inquiries which In some re-
spocts go beyond tho lines Of eHtab-
lshrd or unqucntioncd precedent.
Was the case ono OF which the court
had lurisdiction7
No question In made or could he
made IN proceeding for contempt IL
the HuftlciOncy OF the petition Tor the
| Injunction In respect 10 the mhfier OF
form of ayermrnt merely. The ques-
| tlon here. therefore, Is whether the
case presented by the petition was OF
a class which In a federal circuit court
admitted OF the remedy by injunction.
without going into the details or
/ ayormont the charge made against the
/ defendants was that they were en-.
| gagged In a conspiracy 70 hinder and
| Interrupt Interstate commerce ana tho
onfriaRe OF tie malls upon the rail-
ronds centering In Chicago ny means
| and In a manner 10 constitute within
tho recognized definitions, q public
nuisance
fully wof'keth hurt, inconvenienco or
damage" ~ j,
a Blnckatone'a commentaries ue ~
hubble nuisance rs such an iucoufff-
\ ienco or troublesome offense aH annoy
me whole community In general, and
I not merely some particular
& Diacl,atone'H commentaries los,
Numerous cases and text writer's are
cited TO show that equity tiaa jufisdic'
dion 10 restrain public nulsancce upon
bill or Information Med ny inc nttor-
| ney general on behalf OF the people.
The supreme court OF the United
states has apollen on the subject
The case Of the mayor OF George.
town aralnst tlas AicNAndria Canal
company. " Peters. pi-9s. whore an In
junction was sought against obstruot-
ling the navigation Of the Potomac
river. tho court aalhi
,sHesidos this remedy NJ law. II IL
NOW gettled that n court Of equity may
take iurisdiction IN cases OF PUBLIC
nuisance w an information hle1<Fy
mo attorney general whilst, -fNere-
fore. II 81 admitted by all tlkd II n
eonfesvedly one OF delicacys and, ac-
eordingiy, instances in whbh y 10 ex'
eicised arc rare. yet Il gNiy be eyer
cised IN those cases IN which there u
lmutdent danger Of y,rcparabie harzr
before the tardinegf'of tho Law can
reach H."
But while W. Jurisdiction o. us
Engllph hlpL<Sourt q chancery end
mo eqnity-S<fhrta OF the several t;Htei
az me zSrSlon Ia not Understood 70 b
:. a~r>fSI by counsel for the defr idanis
they DO insist that In the absence Of
iierisiatlon by congress comforting ne
authority, the Federal courts can d
nothing FOR Che protection or the high
v-,fva Of Interstate commerce, whether
uron land or water.
IN rcniy 20 this position Of The de-
tense reference II made 10 tho act a
regulate commerce al nmended ny th'
~ % March 2, 1899. IS United state
STATUTES. ss5. ana 81 " contended tia
b- force Of tAe provisions o. tho stat
ute paused In exercise u the powe
conferred on congress by the constiri
ton. 70 regulate commerce among m
several stateA tie aailorri ce- pa