The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-26
DEBS CASE IN COURT.
LYMAN Trumbull Argues For
the A. X. L. Leaders.
n AIMS INJUNCTION is VOID.
e,-r,ers Were Peacemaker-- Not Boy
cofrer- Argument Is over sn-
preme Courts Jurisdiction.


s,s.ea supreme court today began hearing
svgus@rfs IL the case . Eugene :. Debs.
-.ess8aftf ef The American Railway Inl0n
- ssaers Counsel for the defendants
- I,vman Trum9uil, S. .. Gregory and
= Dsrrow. Attorney General Olney,
s.xfstags Attorney General whitney. and
tssxtn walker. special United States at
+grasy appeared Tor the government.
r.ahs ard associates ask FOR writ Of
.astea~ corpus relieving them from the
sar,s1ee 81 imprisonment passed upon
.hry, az Judge oWosis. The fact was de-
,stooed that the main contention Of the
a,ssforers would b. that the original bill
sssfea "cognfzable IN chancery," and
,hsrefore the Injunction vas void. and the
.er.oas al whom Il was aimed were not
t.auad 70 observe H. IN support OF This
s.-cnoAiflon they asserted that without
..atutory authority from congress the
government could maintain no such bin.
I'D 20 such authority could be found I'M
Iesa n &c ln the act OF 800. known as the
sesorfnan antitrust aca," but they con-
.s,ded that this act was unconstitutional
tuecaase involving proceedings IN chan
esrv IN such a case. IL deprived the de-
feodaHss on trial, under penal statute.
a, the right Of trial by jury. contrary TO
.he .ixth amendment of the constitution.
II was 1910 p. m. when the case was
ezllad and Mr.. Trumbull addressed the
,ourt 81 support OF a motion made by
bsmsss that counsel be heard In behalf
~ the petitioners. and that they be al
loved three hours for the pressnta don Of
.bst side Of the case The motion was
Granted and three hours allowed on each
ssde Mr. Trumbull then proceeded with
bis argument on the merits OF the cage.
ogtining the points as above set forth.
I, has been long while since Mr.. Trum-
ball appeared in the court, but he vas
zsAa frnf lat or
many favorable comments on his hale
and venerable appearance. He spoke
without notes and confined himself close
Iy 70 the facts and arguments set forth
f. the brief OF the petitioners
he characterized the proceedings as ex-
tra0rdinary and the statement IN the bill
OF equity as relentless lie declared the
statements made Ia Il had only been
sworn to by an unknown person, man
who, for aught he knew. had been picked
up on the street for the purpose He
called attention TO the fact that the road
OF the stock yard company was only a To-
cal road. but did not question that some
OF the twenty-five roads entered in the
bill were engaged In an interstate traffic.
He contended that the primary objects OF
the A. X. l.. were TO bring about "a peace
ful adjustment Of the difficulties between
the Pullman company and its employees,
and said this was praiseworthy. Further
more he declared that the Eub1ect would
have been accomplished but for the re-
fusal OF the Pullman officials 10 grant
any concessions. lie said II was an In
suit 10 every Intelligent citizen 20 say
as was said In the bill. that X vas as
necessary 70 carry the Pullman sieepers
as 10 was 10 carry the mail. He also ar
gned the right OF the railroad and Pull
man employees 20 quit work when they
chose and criticized the language of the
bill IN characterizlng this action on their
mart as q boycott. lie also took excep-
ton 10 she use OF the word conspiracy.
as used fra the bill, declaring the purpose
Of the strikers was that OF prey enting
,he hauling of the sleeping cars and not
thas Of preventing the transportation OF
nails or of interfering with interstate
commerce.
TAe great question. ne said. was wheth-
ere court of equity had Jurisdiction OF
me character OF the one under conHidera-
ton and proceeded TO argue tho constftu-
ilonal bearing on the question. lie did
nor believe Il competent for congress TO
confer upon courts OF equity jurisdiction
tn any but equity cases. and he Insisted
tia, congress had never undertaken TO
confer such preroFative. The present case
Involved a criminal ofrensc. Had ever
case occurred when a court OF equity had
attempted TO restrain a cFizen from COM
hitting A criminal acf-hurglary or muir
been guilty as charged they should have
proceeded against them In the regular
manner ~ Indictment and trial by jury.
Mr Trumhuil took issue with the con-
tentOn THAI the constitutional provision
Tor the regulation OF commerce between
the states gave authority for such pro
cse1ing In this equity. but declared this
Was entirely contrary TO the holding of
the court in support Of which position he
quoted various authorities. hut even "
this was correct. the present case was ono
entirely confined 10 the stale Of Illinois.
Continuing. Mr.. Trumhull declared the
supreme court ~ the United States had
been overwhelmed with cases growing cut
- a strained construction OF the consti~
tuition aud bee thought % time 20 call
halt He conteaded that the antitrust
hAl bad uo hearing on the ease Of a n as
ISOLATION ~ railway employees. but VAS
Intended 10 prevent combinations. cor
raralions aad trusts which was made evil
Gen, hy tbr fact that provision was mad"
fer the selsurc 81 property He also as
serted that the injunction in the case had
been issued without notice except 70 the
newspapers N this was true u was IN
defiance ~ congress. and O. was not - be
supposed that everybody was 90 Ice com
pelle3 70 read newspapers. lie urged IN
conclusion thaf pehs and hts associates
we're Illegally imprisoned and asked for
their release
Assistant Attorney General Whitney
followed on h<haN ~ th~ government.
lle thought thar WHOM the question should
le property Ascertaine1 There would hc
very h,tle Iificulty in arriving ~ a de-
eisou Il~ asa not suppose the court
would aN3 S, necessary 30 81 into the gen
eFai question 81 strikes aui hoycotts.
whI,h was an untr,si Ten field fer the su-
preme eeurr and involved points on
wh!ch the courts and fhe text writer's >s