The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-05-28

injunction in aid of the performance
of such duty?
First-what are the relations of the
general government to Interstate COM
Eneroe ana the transportation Of the
mails? They are those of direct super
vision, control and management. While
under the dual system, which prevails
with Us, the powers of government are
distributed between the state and the
nation, and while the latter is properly
styled a government of enumerated
powers. yet within the limits of such
enumeration it has all the attributes
of sovereignty, and in the exercise of
those enumerated powers acts directly
on the citizen, and not through the
intermediate agency of the state.
The POstOmce System.
Second-Under the power vested in
Congress to establish postofhceS ana
postroads, Congress has. by mass or
legislation, esta blished the great post
Office system of the country with all
Its details of organization, its machln-
cry for the transaction of business,
defining what shall be carried and
what not, and the price of carriage,
and also prescribing penalties for ali
offenses against it. Obviously, these
powers given to the national govern
ment over interstate commerce and in
respect to the transportation OF the
mails are not dormant and unused.
Congress had taken hold Of these two
matters and by serious and specific
acts had assumed and exercised the
powers given to it, and was in full
discharge o it's duty TO regulate inter
state commerce and carry the mails.
If the inhabitants Of single state
or a great body of them should com
bine TO obstruct interstate commerce,
or the transportation of the mails,
Of
such a community would be doomed
in advance 20 failure. And II the GER
tainty of such failure was known and
the national government had no other
way to enforce the freedom of inter
state commerce and the transporta-
ton of mails than by prosecution and
punishment for interference Herewith,
the whole interest Of the nation in
these respects would be at the abso-
lutte mercy Of a portion Of the inhabtt-
ants of a single state.
No ImpOtency.
But there is no impotency in the ma
tiona1 government. The entire strength of
the nation may be used to enforce in
any part of the land, the full and fl "a
exercise of all national powers, and the
security of all rights entrusted by the
constitution to its care. The strong ad-
xlinistration of the national government !
may be put forth to brush away all OBJ
strUctions to the freedom Of interstate |
commerce on the transportation Of the |
mails. If the urgency arises, the army of /
the nation, and all its militia, are at the
service of the nation tc compel obedience /
to the laws.
In the case before US, the right to use
force does not exclude the right Of APP |
peal to the courts for a judicial deter
mination, and for the exercise of all /
their powers Of prevention. Indeed, it is |
more to the praise than to the b,eme Of |
the government that instead Of determin- /
ing for itself questions of right and /
wrong on the part Of these petitioners /
and their associates. and inferring that /
determination by the club of the police
man and the bayonet of the soldier, |
it submitted all those questions to the |
determination of judicial tribunals, and in /
voloed their consideration and judgment /
as to the measure of its rights and pow
ers, and the co-relative obligations of |
those against whom 1t made complaint.
And it is eqally to the credit of the latter
that the judgment of those tribunals was
by the great body Of them respected, and |
the troubles which threatened so much |
disaster terminated.
Governments Interest.
Neither can it be doubted that the gov
eminent has such an interest in the sub
ject matter as enables it to appear as
party plaintiff in the suit. 1t is said that
equity only interferes for the protection of
property and that the government has no
property interests. 4 sufficient reply is
that the United States have a property
in he mails, IN the protection Of which
was one Of the purposes of this trial.
Up to q recent date commerce, both In
terState and interna Uonal, was mainly by
water, and it is not strange that both the
legislation of Congress and the cases in
the courts have been concerned principal
y Herewith. The fact that in recent
years the interstate commerce has come
mainly TO be carried on by railroads and
over artificial highways has In no manner
narrowed the scope Of the constitutional
gress over such commerce. On the con-
trary, the same fullness of control exists
in the one case as in the other, and the
same power TO remove distractions from
the one as from the other.
Constitutional provisions do not change,
but their operation extends to the new
habits of the people vary with each sue
ceeding generation.
That the bill filed in this case disclosed
special facts calling for the exercise OIL
the powers OF the court is not open to
question. The picture drawn in 1t of the
vast interests involved, not merely OF the
nois, but Of all the states, and the gener-
al confusion into which the interstate
commerce Of the country was thrown
through forcible Interference with that
commerce; the attempted exercise by in
dividuals of powers belonging only TO the
government, and the threatened contin-
uance of such invasions of public rights,
presents a condition Of things which
called for the fullest exercise of all the
powers of the court.
Special EFFICIENCY.
IF ever there was special exigency
presented, one which demanded that the
court should do all that courts can do, it
is apparent on the face of this bill and
VIC need not turn to the public history OF
the day which only reafflrTnS with en-
phasiS all it's allegations. The difference
between public nuisance and private
is that one affects the people at
large and the other simply the Individual.
The quality of the wrong is the same, and
the jurisdiction of the courts over them
rests upon the same principles and goes
ID the same extent. The argument in OPP
position does not question the jurisdiction
the action of the government in applying
for the process. 1t surely cannot be seri-
ously contended that the court has juris-
diction to enjoin the obstruction of a
by one person, but that its jU-
Prediction ceases when the obstruction is
suggested, that in the excitement of pas
sion a mob will pay little heed to pro
cesses issued from the courts, and it may
be said by counsel in argument that 1t !
would have savored somewhat of the rid
jculouS TO have read a writ OF injunction
10 Lees army during the late civil war.
IL is doubtless true that in the throeS of
the rebellion or revolution the processes
Of civil courts are of little avail, for the
power of the courts rests on the general
support of the people, and their recogni-
ton of the fact that peaceful remedies :
are the true resort Cor the correction of
wrongs. But does not counsels argu-
ment imply too much? Is it TO be as