St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1894-07-24

Mrs. Debs. Mrs. Keliher and Mrs.
Rogers were In the court early, and
greeted the four prisoners when they
were brought in. The prosecution was
represented by Distric Attorney Mil
christ. Special Counsel Edwin Walker
and Assistant District Attorney Hand,
while the Santa Fe railroad was repre-
sented by Incorporation Counsel John
Miller and E. A. Bancroft.
Attorney Gregory opened the main
case with the suggestion that the hear
ing of Debs and the others be postponed
until after their trial under the indict.
nents pending against them, but the
suggestion was not sustained by the
court.
MOTION TO DISMI IS.
After the reading of the information
against the prisoners by the district at
torney and the hearing of the answer as
read by the defendants lawyer, Attor-
ney Erwin moved formally that the de-
PENDANTS be dismissed. He also asked
that the government elect whether 1t
would try the prisoners on the original
Indictment Or on the injunction.
ment would elect by going OH, and At
torney Gregory began his argument in
support OF the motion to dismiss the
bill.
MIR. Gregory went on to argue that,
as this was criminal proceeding, an
answer under oath that he was not
guilty was all the sdefense. A person
cited for criminal contempt could be
tried for crime only by jury. Pro-
ceedings of this kind should not be re-
sorted to or permitted to take the place
OF the laws of tho land. The court
should decide in favor Of liberty. He
said he was not one of those who, in
supposed friendliness to the defend
ants, were disposed to criticise the ac-
ton Of the court in issuing the injunc-
ton. He did not believe the court was
trying to enforce the criminal statutes
by means of an injunction, or that the
court would issue an Injunction for any
such purpose.
THE doctrine of this injunction is"
interrupted Judge Woods. ''that il is
not to De used to restrain crime. In.
functions ara not issued for that pur-
pose, yet ali order luay be entered to
restrain acts which involve crime. The
court acted on that theory"
Mr.. Gregory, resumlng. said the in
junction restrained the defendants
from preventing the employees by
threats. Intimidation, force, violence or
persuasion from performing their du-
lies, or inducing them by threats, vio-
lence, force or intimidation TO leave
the service of the roads.
In the iniuuctiuu fha word nprSua-
sion was stricken out. This called out
another statement from Judge Weeds,
VINO said the court had refused to ell
join men from soliciting other men to
leave their work. That question is now
III the court of appeals in the Northern
Pacific case, ana the court had no
desire to Interfere with it. MIR.
Gregory said the injunction did not
enjoin the leaders OF the union from
advising men to Quit work. 1.-The
Injunction" said Judge Woods, twas a
general order not to Interfere with the
operation of the roads. Whether ad-
vlsIng was Interference is aquestion
to be decided :" The attorney commended
that as long as people Obeyed the laws
they could not be held responsible for
the laWleSsneSS of others. He admitted
that there was violence in the recent
strike, and the men who committed it
were guilty of violating the injunction.
The people who advised violence were
also guilty, but there was not line in
the Information that the defendants
either committed or advised airy violeut
acts. Jupge Grosscep said the theory
of the government was that violence
was the natural consequence of the tele-
graphic orders sent out by the defend
ants.
Mr. Gregory was followed by Mr..
walker for the prosecution, VINO at
tackled the answer vigorously. He said
the answer was not full reply to the
charges III the information. 1t denied
all knowledge of the kilograms, with
one exception, and the government
would like to have the opportunity to
show that there was an answer received
to each message and that it was received
by the officers OF the railway union. All
the strik orders which had resulted in
the stoppage OF commerce and the mail
came from the office OF the union in
Chicago, and they were responsible for
everything that happened in conse-
quence, even TO the loss of life. He
said all answer in contempt proceed
ing was sufficient to discharge the ac-
cused at common law, but i'll an equity
proceeding the court could hear the
evidence of both sides.
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Walkers
argument court adjourned, and romor-
row morning Attorney John s. Miller,
who represents the Santa Fee, will SPEAK
tor the prosecution.