The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-27

eiiN AZ VIC SCdlC OH w uiCu blCy WCiO COil-
Quoted, and which strongly appealed to
the Imagination as well as to the pas
sions of men. Its action was denounced
from the outset as novel and unprece-
dented, so that it even became expedient to
publicly proclaim the right and familiar
principle that for the execution of national
functions every foot of every State is ma
tional soil and national property. Since
then the same policy has been perslstently
pursued and the Government bill in equity,
the injunction and the proceedings for con-
tempt have all been loudly condemned as
analogous, extraordinary and revolution
airy. To such charges there could be no
more decisive answer than is furnished by
this debate and by the contentious of the
respective parties"
Mr.. Olney closed at 1 o'clock and was
promptly followed by Mr.. barrow in the
interest of the petitioners. There was no
interruption of the Attorney General dur
ing the progress of his argument by any
member of the court, and he received the
closest attention. Mr.. Darrow opened by
saying that he agreed with Mr.. Olney that
the case was one of vast Importance. Not
only was it of Importance to the corpora
tions, but to the countless millions of
working people. He asserted that the
Attorney-Ge had overlooked the in
terest of this latter class in his argument,
danger to civil liberty embraced in the
case. He replied with some warmth to Mr..
Olneys criticism of the failure of the State
courts to take proper cognizance OF the
acts of violence accompanying the strike,
declaring that the State had ever been
anxious to preserve peace and was capable
Of doing SO. If the contrary had been true
the United States troops could be called
on, but there was no excuse under the law
for appealing to the Federal courts.
He then took up the legal aspect of the
case, criticizing what he asserted to be the
abandonment by the Government of its
original position in bringing its bill under
the antitrust law. The search for prece-
dent for an action like the present under
the common law powers had been in vain
both on the part of counsel for the petit
TONERS and the Government. He con-
tended that the interstate commerce act
was not applicable as that law was enacted
for the purpose of dealing with and re-
stricting the operations of the railway cor
porations. 1t was charged that the officers
of the A. r. U. had sent kilograms order
ing strikes, but it had been shown that
these kilograms advised observance of the
law. The original bill itself was free from
such charges. Ii then these men had com
mitted no offense, there was no power in
the court to commit them for contempt.
In almost every word uttered by the
Acknowledgement this court is urged, said
Mr.. Darrow, not to interfere because these
men were guilty of unlawful acts and be-
cause the consequences of their acts were
serious. Could the equity power of the
courts be resorted to because Congress had
not seen fit to provide an adequate penalty
for certain offenses? If such a state of
affairs as pictured by the Acknowledgement
did really exist in Chicago the situation
was one with which the executive should
have dealt through the military and not
through the courts. What was needed
was the display of force and not the order
OF court in such an emergency.
Mr.. Darrow concluded with personal
appeal on behalf of his clients. He con-
tended their acts were not criminal He
could say on behalf of his clients that,
although they might have been misguided
and unwise, they had acted from the high
est and purest motives. When a body of
100000 men lay down their implements of
labor, not because their own rights have
been invaded. but because the bread has
been taken from the mouths of their fell
lows, we have no right to say they are
criminals. 1t is difficult to place ourselves
in the position of others, but this court
should realize that the petitioners in this
case are representatives of the great labor
ing element of this country upon which
the country must SO largely depend for it's
safety, prosperity and progress. Mr.. OAR
rows argument was the last in the case,
and when he had finished the court pro-
ceeded with other business on its calendar
A decision will probably be rendered before
the adjournment in May.