Crawford avalanche. (Grayling, Mich.) 1879-19??, 1894-12-20

court. On the bench with Judge Woods
sat Judge jenkins.
Judge Woods read but a small portion
of his exhaustive opinion, which covers
SO pages of typewriter manuscript
and contains more than $4,000 words. 1t
required more than two hours for him to
read the opinion minus the omissions. In
brief the decision finds the defendants
guilty of contempt in conspiring to hinder
and prevent the transmission of United
States mails and interstate commerce.
Mr.. Debs is regarded as the ringleader
and is more heavily punished. The acts
of the defendants are characterized as a
''willful disobedience of the injunctions
issued by the court"
This is the concluding chapter for the
time being at least in the history of the
great railroad strike of last summer.
1t is not likely that Debs and his asso-
ciates were either unprepared for the SEN
tence passed upon them or were inclined
to regard it as severe. When an injunc-
ton was issued through the United States
courts last summer restraining the lead
ers Of the strike from interference with
interstate commerce and that injunction
was not obeyed, the subsequent move in
volving the arrest of the strike leaders for
contempt of court was an outcome easily
foreseen both by the public and by the
strikers themselves.
1t is in his decision as to certain
weighty points involved that Judge
Woods ruling will be most likely to create
discussion. The Judges lengthy presen-
tation of the case revolves upon two cen
trail topics-the validity of the injunction
and the actual culpability of the de-
PENDANTS in the violation of the Injunction
issued against them. AS to the validity
of the injunction Judge Woods defines the
interruption of interstate commerce as
clearly within the jurisdiction of Fed
eral Circuit Court. The acts of the de-
PENDANTS he defines as unlawful, and the
opponents of government by injunction"
will doubtless find herein occasion to in
quire why, if the acts were unlawful, the
positive statutory remedy for the redress
of those acts of lawlessness should not
have been employed instead of the instru-
ment of the injunction. The principle
that an injunction cannot be brought in
restraint of an act already declared GRIM
inal by law is one that appears again in
this connection, as it has throughout the
late labor troubles. and it takes an addi-
ional emphasis from Judge Woods care
full iteration that the same act may con-
stitute both contempt and crime, and
that both are punishable separately.
The defendants did not appear particu-
larry crushed by the punishment Debs
bowed his tall, gaunt form and whis-
pered a few words to his sister. who sat
near, and they both laughed heartily.
Howard and Hogan exchanged smiling
glances and Keliher grasped his attor-
ney's hand and appeared to offer con-
gratulations. 1t was evident that all had
expected much more severe sentences and
all wore look of relief. Debs drew his
people together and instructed them to
say nothing for publication, setting them
an example by refusing to discuss the case
ut all. After the murmur of excitement
over the sentence had subsidized the court
announced that the punishment was not
to take effect for ten days, in which time
the defendants attorneys will prepare an
appeal. The prospective prisoners, after
n short consultation with their attorneys,
left the COURTROOM.