St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-03-26

DEBS HAS HEARING
Application for Habeas Cor
pus Argued in Supreme
Court.
OLNEY HAS YET TO SPEAK
Before Decision Will Be Rem
dered in the Case by the
Judges.
VOLUNTEERS ARE ENTITLED
Decision Regarding Longevi-
ty Pay--Murderer'S Sem
tenee Affirmed.

United States supreme court today
began the hearing in the case of Eu-
gene V. Debs and others. The coun-
sci numbered three on the side of the
defendants, headed by Hon. Lyman
Trumbull and including Messrs. S. S.
Gregory and G. S. barrow. Attor-
ney General Olney, Assistant Whit
ney and Edwin Walker, special
United States attorney, appeared for
the government. The early proceed
ingS in the court today developed
that the question at issue was not
complex. Debs and his associates
ask for writ of habeas corpus re-
, Heving them from the sentence
| passed upon them by Judge Woods.
| The fact was also developed that
| the main contention of the petition
ers would be that the original bill
stated no case cognizable in chancery
and that therefore the injunction
was void and that the persons at
| whom it was aimed were not bound
to observe it.
Assistant District Attorney Cen
eral Whitney followed on behalf of
the government. He thought that
when the question should be prop
erly ascertained there would be very
little difficulty in arriving at a de-
cision.
He did not suppose Ple court
would find it necessary to go into
the general question of strike and
boycotts, which was an untrodden
field for the supreme court, and in
volved points upon which the courts
and the text writer's, so far as they
had dealt with the matter, were di-
vided. 1t was thel efore unnecessary
to consider whether the antitrust
law applies to cOnspi-acies of the
kind in which Debs and others were
engaged. The case was a peculiar
! one, in which none of the parties to
| the present case were engaged in
the Chicago strike as employees of
! any of the roads. They had organ
| lied for the purpose of boycotting
| the Pullman company, and in doing
| that proceeded to paralyze the rail-
road companies, which they were
| doing when the injunction was is
sued. The main object of the organ
iZation was to secure entire control
of the railroads of the country. He
dwelt upon the great injury done by
| the strike, which injury was, he
said, irreparable, and asked that the
| court take cOgnizance Of this fact,
as it was conceded on all hands.
| There could hardly be a question
| that the strike was unlawful in it's
! aspects, in it's attempt at boycotting
and at controlling by combination
the railroad traffic of the country.
The real question was as to the juris-
diction of a court of equity, and he
contended that it had it in such a
case as the present.
Mr.. Whitney contended, in reply
to the objection that the United
States was not properly a party to
the present proceedings, having no
interests which were involved, that
in habeas corpus proceeding it
was immaterial by what party the
proceeding should be inaugurated.
Yet he cOntended that the situation
was one which called for the inter-
ference of the civil authorities He
also contended that the case was one
in which it was proper to invoke the
aid of an equity court to the extent
at least of granting an injunction,
leaving the criminal features of the
case to be considered by a criminal
court.
He urged in conclusion that the
case could only be brought into the
supreme court on appeal after the
final decision of the case below
Mr.. Gregory opened his argument
with a reference to the question as
to whether the information" in the
case was properly before the court,
and he urged that the case was not
one for too close scrutiny, as the
matter was one involving the liberty
of the citizens. 1t seemed to be
dangerous power to commit to a
single magistrate that he might i'm
prison without regard to facts or the
law, and that there could be no ap-
peal to the supreme court. He con-
tended that Debs and his associates
had not been enjoined from order
ing a strike" which was what they
had been guilty of, if guilty at all.
Regarding the jurisdiction of the
court below, Mr.. Gregory contended
that there was none, because no fed
eral statute had been submitted I'M
der which the case could be consid-
cred there except the antitrust law,
and he characterized the effort to
proceed under this law as "a kind of
judicial strabism." He regarded it
as significant that the government
had virtually abandoned this law
as a ground of proceeding.
Continuing, he asserted that the
English chancery courts had never
undertaken to enjoin the obstruction
of railroads owned by private cor
porations, no. had there been such
a proceeding in any of our state
courts in this country. In reality,
this was a proceeding to punish for
conspiracy by an equity court, and
such course was not allowable in
advance of congressional enactment.
Until such enactment he had called
upon the court to prevent.
Mr.. Walker asserted the right of
the United States to invoke the aid
of an equity court to suppress a
nuisance, and therefore such a court
had jurisdiction in this case He
referred briefly to the condition of
affairs in Chicago when the appeal
was made to the circuit court, which
was, he said, for the protection of
the mails and of interstate com
merce and for issuance of writs to en-
join such interference. He defend
ed the right of the government to in
woke protection of these interests in
a court of equity, asserting that
such a course is authorized both bv
the statutes and the decision of the