The Kootenai herald. [volume] (Kootenai, Idaho) 1891-1904, 1895-03-30
Asks for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Relieving Defendant.
ABLE COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES
Main Contention IL That the Injunction
Was Vol and Not To BE
Oh. yed.

". Debs, president of the American
Railway Union, and others. Counsel
for defendants are Lyman Trumbul.
S. S. Gregory and c. S. Darrow. Attor-
ney General Olney, Assistant Attorney
General Whitney and Edwin Walker,
special United States attorney, appear
ed for the government. Debs and as
sociates ask for a writ of habeas corpus
relieving them from the sentence of i'm
prisonment passed upon them by Judge |
Woods.
The fact was developed that the main
contention of the petitioners would be |
that the original bill stated that no |
such case is cognizable in chancery, and !
therefore the injunction is void, and |
the persons at whom it was aimed are |
not bound to observe it. In support of !
this proposition they asserted that with /
out statutory authority from congress
the government could maintain no such |
bill and no such authority could be
found unless it be in the act of $780,
known as the Sherman antitrust act
but they contended that this act was
unconstitutional because involving pro-
ceedings in chancery in such case, 1t
deprived defendants on trial under the
penal statute of the right of trial by
Jury, contrary to the sixth amendment
of the constitution.
Lyman T. Trumbull one of the coun-
sci for the petitioners. declared the SUI
preme court of the United States had
been overwhelmed with cases growing
out of a strained construction of the
constitution and he thought it time to
call a halt. He contended that the anti
trust 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 injunction in the case
had been issued without notice except
In the newspapers. If this was true,
1t was in defiance of congress and 1t
was not to be supposed that everybody
was to be compelled to read the news
papers. He urged in conclusion that
Debs and his associates were Illegally
imprisoned and asked for their release.
WHITNEY'S SIDE.
Assistant Attorney General Whitney
followed on behalf of the government.
He thought that when the questions
had been properly ascertained, there
would be very little difficulty in arriv-
ing at decision. He did not suppose
the court would find it necessary to go
into the general question of strikes and
boycotts, which was an untrodden field
for the supreme court and involved
points on which the courts and the text
writers, so far as they had dealt with
the matter, were divided. 1t was there
fore unnecessary to consider whether
the antitrust law applies to conspiracy
of the kind in which Debs and his as
sociates were engaged. The case was a
peculiar one in that none Of the parties
10 the present case was engaged in the
Chicago strike as employees Of any of
the roads. They had organized for the
purpose of boycotting the Pullman COM
pany and in doing that proceeded to
paralyze the railroads, which they were
doing when the injunction was issued.
The main object of the organization
was to secure entire control of the rail-
roads Of the country.
He dwelt on the great injury done by
the strike, which injury, he said, was
jrreparable, 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 The real question was the
jurisdiction of a court of equity, and he
contended that it had it in such a case
as the present.
Whitney contended that the situation
ference of the government authorities
He also contended that the case was
one in which 1t was proper to invoke
the aid of an equity court to the extent
at least, of granting an injunction, leav-
ing the criminal features of the case tc
be considered by criminal court. He
urged, in conclusion, that the case could
only be brought to the supreme court or
appeal after the final decision of the
case below.
PLEA OF NO JURISDICTION.
Regarding the jurisdiction Of the
court below. Mr.. Gregory contendeC
that there was none, because no fedora
statute had been submitted under which
the case could be considered, except tn,
antitrust law, and he characterize tn,
effort to proceed under this law as "a
kind of judicial strabism." He regard
ed it as significant that the government
had virtually abandoned this law as
ground of proceeding. In reality, thi
was a proceeding to punish for conspir
acy by an equity court and such
course was not allowable in advance o
congressional enactment. Until sucl
enactment be had, he called upon tn
court to prevent the proceeding.
Edward Walker, on the part of tn
government asserted the right of tn
United States to invoke the aid of a,
equity court to suppress a nuisance, an
therefore such a court had jurisdictio
in this case. He referred briefly to tn
condition Of affairs in Chicago when tn
onpaaI xrao made 70 the CirCf1ft cor,r-