The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-27
. step in. if not only in defense of in

to step in, if not only in defense of in
diyiduals, but in obedience to its o.,
legations to protect interstate COM
merce, and because it is the duty of
every government to exercise its func-
lions whenever occasion requires"
Mir. Olney then passed on to the con-
sideration of the means at the COM
mand of the government for the sup
preston of the strike. the principal Of
which was the courts, which must be
depended upon so far as practicable
to deal with it.
He then proceeded to consider the as
sertion that the Chicago affair was
exceptional and to controvert the al
legation to errors in the court below
Mr.. barrow Opens.
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 ar
guments by any member OF the court
and he received the closest attention.
Mr.. barrow opened by saying that
he agreed with Mr.. Olney that the case
was of vast Importance. Not only was
it of Importance to the corporations.
but to countless millions of working
people. He asserted that the attorney
general had overlooked the interest of
this latter class in his argument, as he
had also overlooked the fact of the
danger OF civil liberty embraced in the
case. He replied with some warmth to
Mr.. Olney's criticism of the failure of
the state courts to take proper cog
niZance of the acts of violence accom-
panying the strike, declaring that the
state had never been anxious to pre-
serve peace and was capable of doing
SO. If the contrary had been true the
United States troops could be called
on. but there was no excuse under the
law of appealing to the federal courts.
He then took I'D the legal aspect of
the case, criticising what he asserted
to be the abandonment by the govern
ment of its original position in bring
ing its bill under the antitrust law.
The search for a precedent for an ac-
ton like the present under the common
law powers had been in vain, both on
the part of counsel for the petitioners
and the government. He contended
that the interstate commerce act was
not applicable, as that law was enacted
for the purpose of dealing with and
restricting the operations .of the rail-
way corporations
Whit Was Needed.
1t was charged that the officers of
the American Railway union had sent
kilograms ordering strikes but it had
been shown that these kilograms adj
vised obversance of the law. The
original bill itself was free from such
charge. If, then, these men had COM
mitted no offense. there was no power
in the court to commit them for con-
tempt
In almost every word uttered by the
attorney general this court IS urged
said Mr.. barrow, not to interfere be-
cause these men were guilty of unlaw-
2 f.,1 Oofc nj No. 10
of their acts were serious. Could the
equity power Of the courts be resorted
to because Congress had not seen fit to
provide an adequate peralty for Ger.
tain offenses?
II such state of affairs MS 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 was needed was the
display of force and not the order of q
court in such an emergency.
Mr.. Darrow concluded with a per-
sonal appeal on behalf Of his clients
He contended their acts were not
criminal He could say on behalf OF
his clients that, although they might
have been misguided and unwise, they
had acted from. the highest and purest
motives When a body of e hundred
thousand men lay down their trnple-
ments of labor, not because theil
rights have been invaded, but because
the bread has been taken from the
mouths of their fellows, we have nc
right to say they are criminals It Is
difficult to place ourselves in the posi-
ton of others. but this court Should
endeavor to and should realize the peti
TONERS in this case are representa- tives
/ of the great laboring element of this
country. upon which the country mus
so largely DEPEND for its safety, pros
perity and progress.
/ Mr.. Darrow's argument was the las
in the case, and when he had finished
the court proceeded with other bust
ness on its calendar.
A decision viii probab bly, he rendered
before the adjournment in May.