The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-26
Questions Involving the Anti
Trust Law and Con-
SpiraCieS.
JURISDICTION ALSO FIGURES
Efforts of A. r. u. Men to Secure
Relief From the lmprison-
ment Sentence.


hearing of the arguments in the case of
Eugene V. Debs, president of the American
Railway Union, and others. Counsel for
detenda nts are Lyman Trumbull, S. S.
Gregory and o. S. Darrow. Attorney
General Olney, Assistant Acknowledgement
Whitney and Edwin Walker, special
United States Attorney, appeared for the
Government. Debs and his associates will
ask for writ of habeas corpus relieving
them from the sentence of imprisonment
passed upon them by Judge Woods
1t was 12:40 O'Clock when the case was
called, and Mr.. Trumbull addressed the
court in support of a motion made by him
self that counsel be heard in behalf of the
petitioners, and that they be allowed three
hours for the presentation of that side of
the case. The motion was granted, and
three hours allowed on each side.
Mr.. Trumbull then proceeded with his
argument on the merits of the case, out
lining the points as above set forth. 1t has
been long while since Mr.. Trumbull APP
peared in the court, but he was recognized
Immediately, and there were many favor
able comments upon his hale and vener-
able appearance. He spoke without notes
and confined himself closely to the facts
and arguments set forth in the brief of the
petitioners. He characterized the pro-
ceedlngs as extraordinary and the state
ments IN the bill of equity as relentless.
He declared that the statements made in
1t had only been sworn to by an unknown
person; a man, for aught he knew. had
been picked up on the street for the pur-
pose.
He called attention to the fact that the
road of the stockyard company was only
local 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 object of the.
A. 4. U. was to bring about peaceful ad-
justment of the difficulties between the
Pullman Company and its employees and
said this was praiseworthy. Furthermore,
he declared that the object would have
been accomplished but for the refusal of
the Pullman officials to grant any conces-
slons. He said it was an insult to every
intelligent citizen TO say as was said in the
Dill, that 1t was as necessary to carry the
Pullman sleepers as it was to carry the
mail. He also argued the right of the rail-
road and Pullman employees to quit work
when they chose and criticized the Ian
guage OF the bill in characterizing this ac-
ton on their part as a boycott He also
took exception to the use of the word con-
splracy as used in the bill, declaring that
the purpose of the strikers was that of pre-
venting the hauling of sleeping-cars and
not that of preventing the transportation
of mails or of interfering with interstate
commerce. The great question was, he
said, whether court of equity had jurisdic-
ton in case of the character of the one I'M
der consideration and he proceeded to argue
the constitutional bearings of the question.
He did not believe it competent for Con-
gress to confer upon courts OF equity juris-
diction in any but equity cases and he in
sisted that Congress had never undertaken
to confer such prerogative. The present
case involved criminal offense. Had ever
a case occurred when court of equity had
attempted to restrain citizen from COM
uniting criminal act-burglary or MUIR
der for instance? If the petitioners had
been guilty as charged they should have
proceeded against them in the regular
manner by indictment and by trial jury.
In his argument Mr.. Trumbull took issue
with the contention that the constitutional
provision for the regulation of commerce
between the States gave authority for such
proceeding in equity, but declared this
was entirely contrary to the holding of the
court, in support of which position he
quoted various authorities. But even if
this was correct the present case was one
entirely confined to the State of Illinois.
Continuing, Mr.. Trumbull declared the
Supreme Court of the United States had
been overwhelmed with cases growing ont
of strained construction of the constitu.
ton, and he thought it time to call halt.
He contended that the antitrust bill had
no bearing on the case of an association of
railway employees, but was intended to pre-
vent combinations, corporations and trusts
which was made evident by the fact that
provision was made for the seizure of prop
erty. He also asserted that the Injunction
in the case had been issued without notice
except to the newspapers. If this was
true 1t was in defiance of Congress, and it
was not supposed that everybody was to
be compelled to read newspapers. He
urged, in conclusion, that Debs and his
associates were illegally imprisoned and
asked for their release.
Assistant Attorney General Whitney fol-
lowed on behalf of the Government. He
thought that when the question should be
properly ascertained there would be very
little difficulty in arriving at a decision.
He did not suppose the court would find
it necessary to go into the general question
of strikes and boycotts, which was an un-
trodden field for the Supreme Court and
involved points on which the courts and
the text-writers, so far as they had dealt
with the matter, were divided. 1t was
therefore unnecessary to consider whether
the antitrust law applies to conspiracies
of the kind in which Debs and his associ-
ates were engaged. The case was peculiar
one in that none of the parties to the pres
ent case were engaged in the Chicago strike
as employees of any of the roads. They
had organized for the purpose of boycott
ting the Pullman Company and in doing
that proceeded to paralyze the railroad
companies, which they were doing when
the injunction was issued. The main OBJ
ject of the organization was to secure en-
tire control of the railroads of the country.
He dwelt on the great injury done by
the strike, which injury, he said, was ire
parable, and asked that the court take
copniZance of this fact as it was conceded