The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-05-28
DEbS ET AL MUST GO TO JAIL.
The Supreme Court Denies The Petition
for a Writ Of HabeaS Corpus.
AN EXHAUSTIVE OPINION RENDERED.
Ihe Circuit Court Had the Power 10 Issue
its Process of INJUNCTION and II Was
Viola cd-Upinioos in Seversi
Minor Cares Iendsred,

WASHINGTON. May 2.-The habeas
cornus case of Eugene Y. Debs et al,
growing out Of the great railroad strike
al Chicago last summer, was decilcd III
the United States Supreme Court TO-
oav. its unanimous opinion being read py
Justice Brewer. The opinion emnodlss an
exhaustive discussion Of the contentious
on behalf OF Debs ct al, and closes as
follows
IHE COURTS OPINION.
eve have given TO this case the most
anxious and careful attention, Tor We
realize that it touches closely question:
OF supreme Importance TO the people oI
this country. Summing up our cohciu-
sions. we mold that the Government OF
me United States Is one having Juris-
,.ction over every foot Of soil "lthih
It's territory, and acting directly upon
each citizen, that while 81 is govern
mont Of enumerated powers, IL has wilhlh
the limits Of those powers all the at
tributes of sovereignty, that 10 IL lS
committed power over interstate COM
merce and the transmission OF the mail
that the powers thus conferred upon
the NATIONAL Government are not doi-
mant, but have been assumed ana put
into exercise By the legislation or Con-
grcss. that i'm the exercise OF those powers
all obtructions upon highways, natural
or artificial, TO the passage OF interstate
commerce or the carrying OF the mail,
that while IL may be competent FOR the
Government. through the executive
branches, and in the use of the executive
power OF the nation, 10 forciDiy remove
all such distractions, IL is equally Wlthin
its power TO appeal 10 tho civil courts
for an inquiry and determination as 10
the exercise and character of any alleged
obstruction. and if any are found TO
exist. or threaten 10 occur. 10 invoke
the power Of these courts 10 remove or
restrain such distractions. that tine Juris-
diction of courts TO interfere in sucn mat
ters by injunction Is one recognized from
ancient times. and by indisputablc au-
thority. that such jurisdiction is not GUST
cd by The fact that the distractions are
accompanied by. or consists o. acts in
themselves violations of the criminal law.
that the proceedings by injunction is ol
a civil character. and may be enforced by
proceedings I'm contempt. that the penal
~ for a violation OF such Injunction Is
no subject for, and no defence TO, prose
cution for criminal offences committed
in the course of such violation.
POWER TO ISSUE Al INJUNCTION.
"The complaint filed in this case clear
ly showed an existing obstruction Of ar
thcial highways for the passage Of inter
state commerce. and the transmission of
the mail-an obstruction not only tempora
rarily existing. but threatening 10 con-
tinue; that under such complaint the
Circuit Court had power to issue its pro-
cess of Injunction; that, 10 having been
issued and served on these defendants
Tie Circuit Court had authority 10 inquire
whether its orders had been dis0beyed
and when it found that they mad been,
to proceed under Section rs, Revised
Statutes. and enter the order Of punish
ment complained Of and, finally. that
the court. having fun jurisdiction in tht
premises, It's findings of the acr of dis
obedience is not open to review on habcas
corpus in this or any other circuit.
I'VE enter into explanation of tho act
Of July ~. 1890 l26 State -, upon which
the circuit relied mainly to sus
tain its jurisdiction. IL must not
be understood from this that we dissent
from the conclusions Of that court, ir
reference 10 the scope of the act. bat
| simply that we prefer 10 rest our judg
ment on the broader ground which has
| been discussed In this opinion, believing II
| of Importance that the principles
underlying IL should be fully stated ant
| fully affirmed
"The petition for a writ Of habeas cor
| pgs is denied"