The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-03-26
THE HIGHEST TRIBUNAL
The Great Strike Controversy Now Be-
fore the Supreme Court
FOR THE RELEASE OF DEBS
And His Associates Who We're SEN
fenced to Prison-Argume
Pro and Con of the Z mi
nent Counsel.
FOR THE RELEASE OF DEBS


States supreme court to-day began hear
| ing arguments in the case of Eugene V.
| Debs, president of the American Railway !
union, and others. The counsel for the |
| defendants are Lyman Trumbull, 5. ).
| Gregory and c. S. Darrow. Attorney
| General Olney, Assistant Attorney Gem
| eral Whitney and Edwin Walker, special
United States attorney, appeared for the
government. Debs and associates ask
| for n writ of habeas corpus relieving them
| from the sentence ofimprisonment passed
| upon them by Judge Woods.
The fact was developed that the main
contention of the petitioners would be
that the original bill stated there was no
case cognizable in chancery, and there
fore the Injunction was void and the per-
| sons at whom it was aimed we're not
| bound to observe il. In support of this
| proposition they asserted that without
| statutory authority from congress the gov-
| ernment could maintain no such bill and
no such authority could be found, unless
it be in the act of 1890. known as the Sher-
man antitrust act, but they contcnded
this act was unconstitutional because of
| involving proceedings in chancery in such
case, it deprived the defendants on trial
uEder the penal statute of the right of
| trial by jury, contrary to the sixth amend
| ment to the constitution.
Lyman j. Trumbuil, one of the counsel
for the petitioners, declared the supreme
court of the United States had been over
whelmed with cases growing out of a
strained construction of the constitution
and he thought it time to call halt. He
contended that the antitrust bill had no
bearing on the case of an association of
railway employees but was intended to
prevent combinations, corporations and
| trusts. as was made evident by the fact
that provision was made for the seizure
of property. He also asserted the inJunc-
ton in the case had been issued without
notice except in the newspapers. If this
was true, it was in defiance of congress,
and it was not to be supposed that every
body was to be compelled to read the
newspapers. He urged, in conclusion,
that Debs and his associates were illegally
imprisoned and asked for their release.
| Assistant Attorney General Whitney fo!-
| lowed on behalf of the government. He
| thought that when the questions be
| properly ascertained there would be very
little difficulty in arriving at a decision.
He did not suppose the court would find
it necessary to go into the general ques-
ton of strikes and boycots which was an
untrodden field for the supreme court
and involved points on which the courts
and the text writer's, so far as they had
dealt with the matter, were divided. 1t
was therefore unnecessary to consider
whether the antitrust law applies TO con
spiracies of the kind in which Debs and
his associates we're engaged The case
was peculiar one in that none of the
parties TO the present case was engaged
in the Chicago strike as employees of any
of the roads. They had organized for tbs
purpose of boycotting the Pullman com
pany, and in doing that proceeded tC
paralyze the railroad companies, which
they were doing, when the injunction was
issued.
The main object of the organization
was to secure the entire control of the
railroads of the country. lie dwelt on tn,
great injury done by the strike, which in
jury, he said, was irreparabie, and asked
that the court take coguizance of thu
fact as it was conceded on all hands
There could hardly be question that tn,
strike was uniawful. The real question
was as TO the juri sdiction of a court o
equity. Whitney contended that the situ
n ton was one which called for the inter
ference of the government authorities
He also contended that the case was on
in which it was proper TO invoke the alC
of an equity court to the extent at least
of granting an injunction, leaving tho
criminal features of the case to be con
sdered by criminal court. He urged il
conclusion that the case could only bt
brought TO tho supreme court on appea
after the final decision of the court below
Regarding the jurisdiction of the cour
below, Mr.. Gregory contended that there
was none, because no federal statute ha,
been submitted under which the cas-
could be considered there, excep; tn
antitrust law, and he character
lied the effort TO proceed unde
this law as "a kind fof judicia
starbism." He regarded it as signiflcan
that the government had virtually aban
doned this law as ground of proceeding 9
In reality this was a proceeding TO punIs
for conspiracy by an equity court, ant
such a course was not allowable in ad
vance of congressional enactment. Tn
til such enactment, he had called upol
the court to prevent 1t.
Edwin Walker, on the part of the gov
ernment, asserted the right of tn
. United States to invoke the aid c
an equity court TO suppress a nu
sance, and therefore such a court ha
jurisdiction in this case. He referre
briefly to the condition Of affairs in Ch
cago when the appeal was made 10 tn
circuit court, which was, he said, for Tn
protection of the mails and Interstat
commerce and the issuance of wriis I,
he enjoin such Interference. He based hi.
argument largely upon the provisions o
the interstate commerce act and upon th
right of the government 10 protect To
mails. Walker concluded with the az
jouInment of the court at o'clock, lea'
ing only two arguments still TO be made
that of Attorney General O.ney, for III
government, and OF Mr.. Darrow, for tn
r,a-pffouars