The record-union., 1895-03-27

as analogous, extraordinary and revolu-
tionary. TO such charges there could be
no more decisive answer than is fur
nished by this debate and by the conten-
tions of the respective parties"
Mr.. Olney closed at ! o'clock, and was
promptly followed by Mr.. Darrow in the
interest of the petitioners. There was no
interruption of the Attorney-General
during the progress of his argument by
any member of the court, and he received
the closest attention.
Mr.. barrow opened by saying that be
agreed with Mr.. Olney that the case was
one of vast Importance. Not only was it
of importance to the corporations, but to
countless millions of working people.
lie asserted that the Attorney General
had overlooked the interest of this latter
class III his argument, as he had also
overlooked the tact Of the danger TO civil
liberty embraced in this case. He re-
piled with some warmth TO Mr.. OlneY'S
criticism of the failure of the State Courts
TO take proper COgniZance of the acts of
violence accompanying the strike, decar-
ing that the State had ever been an iOus
10 preserve peace, and was capable Of do
ing so. If the contrary had been true,
the United States troops could be called
on, but there was no excuse under the
law for appealing to the Federal Courts
He then took up the legal aspect of
the case, criticising what he asserted to
Do tue bbduuOHinSDL Dy In6 Govern
ment of its original position in bringing
its bill under she antitrust law. There
was no precedent for an action like the
present until the common law powers
had been in vain, both on the part of
counsel for the petitioners and the Gov
! ernment. He Conteuded that the Inter-
state Commerce Act was not applicable,
! as that law was enacted for the purpose
| Of dealing with and restricting the oper-
! ailonS OF railway corporations. 1t was
! charged that the officers Of the Ameri-
! can Railway Union had sent kilograms
ordering strikes, but il had Geen shown
! that these kilograms advised observance
! Of the law. The original bill itself was
! tree from such charge. If, then, these
men had commitled no of1ense, there
was no power in the court TO commit
| them for contempt.
I'm almost every word uttered by the
| Attorney General this court is urged -
said MIR. DarroW, mot 10 Interfere be-
cause these men were guilty of unlawful
| acts, and because the consequences of
their acts were serious. Could the equity
! power Of the courts be reSorIed to because
| Congress had not seen 1T to provide an
| adequate penalty for certain oflenses? II
such state OF affairs as pictured by the
! Attorney General did really exist in
! Chicago, the situation was one with
| which the executive should have dealt
| through the military, and not through
/ the courts. What vas needed was the
display OF force, ana not the order OF
court, in such an emergency"
Mr.. Darrow concluded with a personal
appeal on behalf OF his clients. lie con-
tended that their acts were not criminal.
He could say on behalf OF his clients
that, although they might have been mis-
/ guided and unwise, they had acted from
/ the highest and puresU motives. when
a nouY OF 100000 men lay down their i'm
/ plements ol labor, not because their own
rights have been invaded, but because
/ the bread has been taken from the
! mouths Of their fellows, We have no right
/ 10 say they are criminals. Il Is difficult
/ To place ourselves in the position OF
others, but this court should eudeavor TO
and should realize that the petitioners in
this case are representatives Of the great
( laUOring elements of this country, upon
which the country must so largely de-
/ pend for Its safety, prosperity and prog
ress.'
y decision viii probably be rendered
before the adjournment IN May.