Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1895-03-26
DEBS CASE AGAIN.
Lyman TrumbuIl Leads the Ha.
beas Corpus Fight.
OPPOSING JUDGE WOODS DECISION.

OPPOSING JUDGE WOODS DECISION.
Arguing Against .Government by Injunc-
tlon"-Pith Of What Was Slid ON Both
Sides Before the National Supreme Court
Some Facts About the Nicaragua Mat
ter That Make It Extra Haxardoas-
Spain to Send Us New Minister.
WASHINGTON, March 26-The Debs ha-
heas corpus case. which is being watched
with the greatest interest by all the labor
unions in the country, and with equal
interest by the railway and other great
corporations, was argued before the SUI
preme court yesterday, the attorneys for
Lyman Trumball, of Chicago. Debs and
his associates ask for a writ of habeas
corpus relieving them from the sentence
Of imprisonment passed upon them by
Judge Woods, of the United States circuit
for the northern district of Illinois. in
December last, on the charge Of contempt
In failing to obey the injunction OF the
court requiring them to desist from inter-
fefing with the interstate transportation
Of the mails. The main contention Of the
petitioners is that the original bill stated
no case cognizabie in chancery, and that
therefore the injunction was void, and that
the persons at whom it was aimed were
not bound to observe it.
Trumbull Makes His Plea.
After arranging that each side shall
have three hours for debate Trumbull
took the floor and declared that the con-
stitutional provision for the regulation Of
commerce between the states gave no au-
thority for such a proceeding as this in
equity, but that this was entirely contrary
to the holding of the courts, in support
Of which position he quoted various au.
thorities. But even if this was correct the
present case was one confined entirely to
the state Of Illinois. The supreme court
Of the United States had been over
whelmed with cases growing out of
strained construction of the constitution
and he thought it time to call halt He
cOntended that the ANTITRUST bill had no
bearing upon the case of an association
of railroad employees, but was intended to
prevent combinations of corporations and
trusts, as was made evident by the fact
that provision was made for the seizure
Of property.
View OF q Government Lawyer.
Assistant Attorney General Whitney
followed on behalf of the government. He
did not suppose the court would find 1t
necessary to go into the general question
Of strikes and boycotts, which was an I'M
trodden field for the supreme court and
involved points on which the courts ana
tho 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 conspiracies
of the kind in which Debs and others
were engaged. The case was a peculiar
one in that none of the parties to the
present case was engaged in the Chicago
strike as an employee Of any Of the roads.
Organized for Big Boycott.
They had organized 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 issued. The
main object OF tho organization was to
secure entire control Of the railroads Of
the country. He dwelt upon the great in
jury done by the strike, which injury
was, he said, irreparable, and asked that
the court take cognizance Of this fact, as
IL was conceded on all hands. There
could hardly be question that the strike
was unlawful! in its aspects, in its at
tempt at boycoiting and at controlling
by com bination the railroad traffic of the
country.
Antitrust Law Held Applicable.
He argued the applicability of the anti
trust law to such u combination as that
formed by Debs and the other parties to
the present proceeding, contending that q
literal construction Of the law could lead