Elmore bulletin. [volume] (Rocky Bar, Idaho) 1889-1906, 1895-03-30
ARGUING De BS' CASE
Asks for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Relieving Defendant.
ABLE COUNSEL ON BOTH SIDES
mssn ceasenalcn Ia THAT the rsiunetion
was Void and Mos TO Ise
Obeyed.

+ l .
Washington, March 25.--The United
States supreme court today began hear
ing arguments In the case of Eugene
". Debs. president OF the American
Railway Union, and others Counsel
for defendants are Lyman Trumbuil,
Q. q. 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 aud as
aociates ask for writ of habeas corpus
relieving them from the sentence of inn
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 IN cognixable In chancery, and
therefore the Injunction Is void. and
tina persons at whom II 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
blu and no such authority could be
found unless II be In the act OF 1890.
known as the Sherman antitrust act.
but they contended that this act was
unconstitutional because involving pro
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 strained construction OF tho
constitution and he thought II time to
call q halt He commended that the anti
trust bin had no bearing on the case OF
an association OF railway employees, but
was Intended TO prevent combinations.
corpofations and trnsts, as was made
eviaent 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 newspaper& lit this was true.
n was In defiance ~ oohgrss and II
was not u be supposed that everybody
was ID hescompeiIed 10 read the news
papers. He urged IN concInsion that
imprisoned and asked for their release.
WHITNEysS 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 I'm arrfv-
ing Rs a decision, He did not suppose
the court would fnd 1t necessary 20 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 kfe tex
wrtters. 10 far as they had dealt wifi
the matter. were divided. II was there.
fore unnecessary TO consider whethss
the antitrust law applies 20 eonspiraes
OF the kind In which Debs and his az.
sociates were engaged. The care was a
peculiar one In that none OF the parties
10 the present case was engaged In ths
Chicago strike rs employees Of any sci
the roads They had organized for ths
purpose ofiboycotfing tins Pullman com
pany and In doing that proceeded t.
paralyxn the railroads, which theg were
dolnE when the injunction was issued
The main object OF the organization
was 10 secure entire control OF the rail-
roads of the country
He dwelt on the great injury done b,
the strike. which iusury.h said, WA
irreparahle. and asked that the cuur
take cognizance OF this fact. AZ 1t wa,
conceded on all hands,, There coniI
hardly be a question thai the strike wa
unlawful The real question was IN,
jurisdiction of q court OF equity. and h
contended that 1t had IL In such a cas-
~ the present.
Whitney contended that the situation
was one which called for the inter
ference OF the government AUTHORIZES
He also uontend&d that the case WA
one Ia which 1t was pFoper TO invoki
th8aiu Of an equity court 10 the exteni
Mt Ieests Of grating an Injunction, ieay
ing the criminal features of the case /
be considered by a criminal court. III
urged, in conclusion. that the case conl
only be brought to the supreme court o
appeal after the final decision OF tn
case below.
PLEA OF NO JURISDICTIONS Is
Regarding the jurisdiction OF tn
court below. MIR. Gregory contende
that there was none. because no fedora
statute had been submitted under whic
the case could be considered. except tn
antitrust law. and he characterized tn
EFFORT to proceed under this law as =
kind OF judicial strabism." He regard
ed IL as significant that the government
had virtually abandoned this law as
ground OF proceeding. In reality. thi
was proceeding to punish for conspit
acy by an equity court and such
course was not allowable In advance q
congressional enactment Until sue
enactment be had. be called upon tn
court to prevent the proceeding.
Edward Walker. on the part of IN
government. asserted the right OF til
United States 10 invoke the aid or a
equity court 90 suppress a nuisance, an
therefore suxh court had Jurisdictio
In this Ease Iis referred briefly To, III
condition OF affairs In Chicago when IN
appeal was made 10 the circuit couri
which was. he said. for the protectio
Of mails and OF interstate comnlerc,
the issuance OF writs to enJoin such IN
reference. He based his argumen
largely upon the provisions OF the int,
state commerce Mcs and upon the RICH
OF the government 10 protect the man,
Walker concluded with the adjourn
mend 81 court. At 4 o'clock. leaving onl
two mrEusnents Kflllte be snade--shas /
Attorney-GeneraI ulney for the govern
ments and OF Mr.. Darrow for the pet
TONERS.
GERMANY EAGER FOR RIsETAIHas
4