The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-03-26


the great Chicago strike of last sum mer
was hesrd In the United States Supreme
Court to- day, when arguments were
commenced in the case of Eugene v.
Debs and others, for o writ of habeas
corpus. The principal question In
volved in the case is tho legality OF the
action Of the circuit court in issuing the
injunction against the strikers last sum.
mer.
When the case was taken up in the
court this afterp Don MIR. Lyman Trum-
bell, in behalf OF the petitioners, asked
that on account of the Importance of the
case three attorneys upon his side be
heard, and the attorney general making
no objec sion, this was agreed to. This
seton will carry the argument into to-
morrow. Mr.. G. S. Darrow and Mr.. 8.
S. Gregory Will support MIR. Trumbull
in behalf Of the petitioners.
On account of the Importance of this
case, .he Government is represented in
tho argument by the Attorney. General
in person, who will make an oral argu-
ment upholding tho jurisdiction OF the
circuit cours. Mr.. Edwin Walker, of
Chicago, special attorney employed by
tho Government during the strike
troubles, will submit O brief, and
Assistant Attorney-Geleral Whitney
will take part in the proceedings. 1t is
understood that the Government will
rest its claims Of jurisdiction upon the
following propositions:
First, the United States may invoke
the aid of an equity court to restrain O
threatened public nuisance; second, the
circuit court had jurisdiction under tho
bill to restrain the defendants from I'M
lawful interference with or obstruction
to the transportation of interstate COM
merce; third, the court also had iuris-
diction to enjoin and restrain the de-
PENDANTS from hindering, obstructing
and preventing tho transporta ton OF
United States malls.
Mr.. Trumbull openad the argument
for tho petitioners this afternoon. Ho
said that the main question is whether
the bill states case over which court
OF equity has jurisdic lion; If not then
the injunction issued against Debs and
his associ.tesswas void and the prison
ers are entitled to their discharge. Mr..
Trumbull held that the iniunc ton was
unlswfully issued without notice and
the prisoners were at liberty to disro-
gardit.
Mr.. Trumbull, in referring to the in
Junction % extraordinary, declared the
statements in tho bill in equity az
reckless. he declared the statements
made in II had only been sworn to by
an unknown person, man who, for
aught he knew, had been picked 10 on
the street for the purpose. He said it
was an insult to every intelligent citi.-
zen to say, as WAS said in the bill, that
1t was as necessary to carry the Pull
man sleepers as it was to carry tho
mails.
He also argued the right OF the rail-
road and Pullman employees to quit
work when they chose, and criticised
the language Of the bill in characteriz-
ing this action on their part as q boy
cott He also took exception on the
use OF the word conspiracy as used in
the bill. declaring that the purpose of
the strikers was that OF preventing the
hauling OF the sleeping cars, and not
that OF preventing the transportation of
the mails or OF interfering with inter-
state traffic.
The great question was, he said,
whether court of equity had jurisdic.
ton In case of the character OF the
one under consideration, and he pro.
ceeded to argue the constitutional bear
ing of the question. The present case
was one confined entirely to the State
of Illinois. Continuing, Mr. Trumbull
declared that the Supreme Court of the
United States had bsen overwhelmed
with cases growing out of q strained
construction Of the constitution. and he
thought 1t time to call halt.