Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-26
THE ONLY QUESTION
Attorney General 0lney's Argument
in the Debs Case.
JURISDICTION OF TIE EQUITY COURT
Right of the Government to Bring
the Bill Defended.
RESPECT FOR THE LAW

The Supreme Court Of the United States
today continued the hearing of arguments
in the Debs case. Attorney General Olney
In person defended the position of the gov
ernment in the proceedings against Debs
and his associates.
Mr.. Olney said the single question before
the Supreme Court was whether the court
below had Jurisdiction Of the case made by
the original bill and proceeded to show that
as he viewed the matter 1t had He devoted
but very little time to the discussion of the
governments technical relation to the
mails and the mail bags. or to the provis-
ions of the act of 1890, which he character
lied as IAN experimental piece Of legisla-
tion," and passed Immediately to the con-
sideration of the strike as violation of
interstate commerce regulations.
Interstate Commerce.
The interstate commerce, which Is subject
to the regulation of Congress. comprehends.
he said, great variety Of different subject
matter 1t Is held as respects some of
them that in the absence of positive action
thereon by Congress there may be action
by a state; but it has always and uni
versally been conceded that the moment
Congress does act upon any matter which
is part of interstate commerce, from that
moment the jurisdiction of the United
States becomes absolute and excludes all
other authority. Intercourse and transpor-
tation between the states and all the In
strumentalities of either are admittedly
parts of interstate commerce. Transporta-
ton of passengers and freight by railroad
is, of course. included. Not only is that so,
but it is also true that interstate railroad
transportation has been taken in especial
charge by Congress. Having power to con-
troll it, Congress has not permitted the
IL l>,,t ha, 1oIx, ,,.1
decisively exercised it. He then enumerated
many of the federal statutes bearing on the
question of interstate traffic. including
those applying to the mail service, those
relating to the carrying Of live stock and
those requiring the use Of certain kinds of
brakes, &c.
The Purpose of Congress.
But in this connection, and for the pres
ent purposes" he continued. "it is more
important to note the provisions of several
general statutes which cover the whole
field Of interstate railroad transportation
and show most conclusively the purpose of
Congress to exclude every other source and
form of regulation except Its own. Section
525S of the Revised Statutes declares as
follows Every railroad company in the
United States whose road Is operated by
steam, its successors and assigns. Is here
by authorized to carry upon and over Its
road, boats, bridges and ferries and prop
erty on their way from any state to an
other state and to receive compensation
therefor and to connect with roads of other
states so as to form continuous lines for
the transportation of the same to the place
of destination Having by this legislation
made steam railroads interstate commerce
carriers for both governmental and private
purposes, Congress- by the act Of 1887,
known as the interstate commerce act, in
augurated measures more radical and COM
prehensive than anything ever before at
tempted by virtue Of the power to regulate
DIV fhof not fhn TNrin 1TNIn in
accordance with which interstate railroad
transportation shall be conducted are laid
down and defined, their violation is inhibit-
ed under severe penalties, and, to crown
the whole, all the Interstate commerce
railroads of the country are practically
put in charge of commission, which Is to
see to 1t that their duties as interstate car
riers as prescribed by Congress are faith
fully discharged. Finally, recognizing the
existence of an evil of great magnitude.
Congress by an act Of October 1, 1883 made
provision for the creation of boards of ar
bitration to settle controversies between
railroad companies and their employees,
when such controversies are having the ef-
feet of hindering and fnterrupting the In
terstate transportation Of property and
passengers.
Equal to an Express PrOhibtttve
Statute.
Mr. Olney contended that the result was
the same as If there were an express pro-
that the prohibition against interference
with interstate railroad transportation was
a prohibition addressed to all persons in
their private capacity. This prohibition
did not merely annul conflicting state legis-
lation, but would prevent any such legisla-
ton being an excuse or defense for viola
tion of the prohibition. Hence, the con-
clusion by the speaker that as matter
of law, in July, 1894, federal legislation had
put interstate railroad transportation into
the exclusive keeping of the United States
and had prohibited all interference with
fact" he said, "in July. 1894, interstate
railroad transportation was being inter-
fered with in the state of Illinois and the
city of Chicago. The interference was on
twenty-one or two railroads centering in
Chicago, with their 10000 miles of track.
all of whose operatives were practically
paralyzed The interference was not senti-
mental nor brought about by persuasion
or cajolery, nor even bysthreats only. 1t
was accompanied with the burning of cars.
with the derailment of trains, with the
destruction of signal towers and other ap-
pliances for the safe operation of trains,
with assaults upon passengers and en-
ployes by which many were killed and
many more wounded, with bowling and ex-
cited mobs in full occupation of entire
districts and terrorizing entire commune
ties. 1t was an interference for which,
with all it's consequences and incidents, the
present petitioners are to the fullest extent
responsible, unless 1t be true that men
can wantonly touch the match to powder
ard yet be blameless because not rightly
realizing the ensuing devastation; unless
it be true that men can make vehement
appeals for something to be done and yet
plead not guilty when their tools and
dupes resort to the only means by which
that something can be done; unless it be
true that those who seek to execute a plot
by the only means possible. in the open,
and taking the legal consequences upon
their heads, are to be branded as criminals,
while those who sit in an office and hatch
the plot and urge on it's consummation are
to go unwhipped of justice because of loud
mouthed professions of virtue in general
and respect for law and order in particu-
lar"
The Duty of the Government.
The Attorney General then referred
briefly to the general effect of the strike,
and contended that as the strike was
aimed at interstate commerce transporta-
ton, it was the duty of the government to
suppress the unlawful demonstration and
punish the offenders. He admitted that it
1A