The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-05-28

S-NNASSo oSoihSt IL OUNlOusly THESE powers
gwen to the National Government over inter
state commerce, and in respect to the transpor-
tatlon OF the mails, are not dormant and I'M
used. Congress had taken hold OF these two
matters, and by various and specific acts had
assumed and exercised the powers given 1t,
and was in full discharge of its duty to regu-
late interstate commerce and carry the mails.
If the inhabitants of a single State a great
body of them should combine TO obstruct inter
state commerce or the transportation of the
mails, prosecutions OF such offenses had in such
a community would be doomed in advance to
failure. And if the certainty of such failure
was known, and the National Government
had no otner way to enforce the freedom of in
terstate commerce and the transportation of
mails than by prosecution and punishment for
interference Herewith, the whole interests of
the Nation in these respects would be at the
absolute mercy of portion of the Inhabitants
of a single State.
But there is no such impotency in the
National Government. The entire strength of
the Nation may be used to enforce in any part
of the land the full and free exercise of all
national powers and the security of all rights
entrusted by the constitution to its care. The
strong administration of the National Govern
ment may be put forth to brush away all OBJ
structions to the freedom of interstate COM
merce or the transportation of mails. If an
emergency arises the army of the Nation and
all its militia at the service of the Nation to
compel obedience to the laws.
In the case before us the right to use force
does not exclude the right of appeal to the
courts for a judicial determination and for the
exercise of all their powers of prevention.
Indeed, it is more to the praise than to the
blame of the Government that instead of deter
mining for itself questions of right and wrong
on the part of these petitioners and their asso-
ciates and enforcing that determination by the
club of the policeman and the bayonet of the
soldier, 1t submitted all those questions to the
determination OF judicial tribunals and in
voked their consideration and judgment as to
the measure of its rights and powers and the
correlative obligations of those against whom it
made complaint And it Is equally to the
credit of the latter that the Judgment of those
tribunals was by the great body of them re-
spected and the troubles which threatened so
much disaster terminated. Neither can it be
doubted that the Government has such an in
terest in the subject-matter as enables it to
appear as party plaintiff in the suit.
1t is said that equity only interferes for the
protection OF property and that the Govern
ment has no property interests. A sufficient
reply is that the United States has property
in the mails, the protection of which was one
OF the purposes of this trial.
Up 10 a recent date commerce, both inter-
state and international, was mainly by water,
and it is not strange that both the legislation
of Congress and the cases in the courts have
been concerned principally Herewith. The
fact that in recent years the interstate COM
merce has come mainly to be carried on by
railroads and over artificial highways has in
no manner narrowed the scope of the consti-
tutional provision nor Abridged the power OF
Congress over such commerce. On the con-
trary, the same fullness OF control exists as in
the other, and the same power to remove OBJ
structions from the one as from the other.
Constitutional provisions do not change, but
their operation extends to the new matter, as
the modes of business and the habits of the life
OF the people vary with each succeeding gen.
Grafton.
That the bill filed in this case disclosed
special facts calling for the exercise of the
powers of the court is not open to question.
The picture drawn in it of the vast interests in
volved, not merely OF the city OF Chicago and
of the State of Illinois, but of au the States,
and the general confusion into which the in
terstate commerce of the country was
thrown through forcible interference with
that commerce.; the attempted exercise
by individuals of powers belonging
only to the Government, and the threatened
OF such invasions of public rights,
presents a condition OF things which called
for the fullest exercise of all the powers of the
court. If ever there was special exigency
presented, one which demanded that the court
should do all that courts can do, it is apparent
on the face of this bill, and we need not turn
to the public history of the day, which only
resffirms with emphasis all its allegations.
The difference between a public nuisance
and private nuisance is that one affects the
people at large and the other simply the
individual. The quality of the wrong is the
same and the jurisdiction of the courts over
them rests upon the same principles and goes
to the same extent. The argument in oppos-
ton does not question the jurisdiction OF the
court but only the expediency of the action of
the Government in applying for the process.
1t surely cannot be seriously contended that
the court has Jurisdiction to enjoin the OBJ
struction of q highway by one person, but that
its jurisdiction ceases when the obstruction is
by hundred persons. It may be true as sug-
gested, that in the excitement of passion, a
mob will pay little heed to processes issued
from the courts, and it may be said
by counsel in argument that it would have
savored somewhat of the ridiculous to have
read writ of injunction to Lees army during
the late Civil War. 1t is doubtless true that
"Inter Arma Leges Silent, "and in the throes of
the rebellion or revolution the processes OF the
civil courts of little avail, for the power of
the courts rests on the general support of the
people and their recognition of the fact that
peaceful remedies are the true resort for the
correction OF wrongs.
But does the counseps argument imply too
much? Is it to be assumed that these de-
PENDANTS were conducting a rebellion or in
augurating revolution or that they and their
associates were thus placing themselves be-
yond the reach of the civil process of the
courts? Whatever any single individual may
have thought or planned the great body of
those who were engaged in these transactions
contemplated neither rebellion nor revolution
and when in the due order of legal
proceedings the question of right and
wrong submitted to the courts and
by them decided, they unhesitatingly
yielded to their decisions. The outcome,
by the very testimony of the defendants,
attests the wisdom of the course pursued by
the Government, and that it was not well to
oppose force simply by force, but to invoke the
jurisdiction and judgment of those tribunals
to whom, by the constitution and in accord
ance with the settled conviction of all citi-
zens, is committed the determination of ques-
tions of right and wrong between individuals,
masses and States.
A most earnest and eloquent appeal was
made to US in eulogy of the heroic spirit of
those who threw up their employment and
gave up their means of earning q living. not
IN defense OF their own rights, but in sympa-
INV N