The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-03-26
EDITION
0LNEY'S OPINION.
Attorney Generals Argument
in the Debs Case.
Strikes Constituted an Interference
Government Had the Right to Stop.
United States Proper Plaintiff as Trus-
tee OF All Interstate Commerce.

WASHINGTON, March 26.-Attornsy
General Olney today made his argument
in the Debs case in the United States Su-
preme Court.
An abstract of his remarks is:
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 that, a.
he viewed the matter, 1t had. He de-
voted very little time to the discus-
sion of the Governments technical
relation to the mails and the mail bags or
TO the provisions OF the act OF $780, which
he characterized as an experimental
piece Of legislation" and passed immedi-
ately to the consideration Of the strike ss
a violation Of interstate commerce regula-
tions.
In July, 1894, interstate railroad trans
portation was being interfered with In
the State of Illinois and the city Of Chi
cago. The interference was on an inn
mense scale. 1t included more than 21 or
22 railroads centering in Chicago with
their 120, 900 miles OF track, and q number
OF whose business was practically par
alyzed. The interference was not senti-
mental nor brought about by persuasion
or cajolery nor even by threats only.
"It was an Inference for which, with all
its consequences and incidents, the pres-
ent petitioners are to the fullest extent
res ponsible."
The attorney general then referred
briefly to the general effect of the strike
and contended that as the strike was
aimed at interstate commerce transpor-
tation, 1t was the duty Of tho Govt
ment to suppress the unlawful demon
stration and punish the offenders.
Hence it became necessary for the gov
ernment to step in not only in defenss 81
individuals, but in obedience to It's obli-
cations to protect interstate commerce
and because it is the duty of every govern
ment to exercise its functions Whenever
occasion requires.
81 submit, with great confidence, the
exact remedy which it did not apply for,
and the courts did not, in fact, furnish.
1t has no right to 60 into courts of equity
to set out the facts by proper bill, and to
ask that upon these facts the defendants
and their confederates should be
restrained from a wrongful Interrupt
tion of Interstate railroad, which was
working private and public injury of the
most widespread and the most irrepar-
able character. 1t had the right to bring
such bill and to ask and to get such
relief on the most incontestable grounds.
"If, for example, the II or % railroadS
centering in Chicago had been owned BY
one individual or one corporation, that
owner might without doubt have success
fully appealed to court OF equity
for protection against acts such as those
set out in the government bill
"Having no direct property interest in
volved, the United States, it is claimed,
could not be plaintiff in such bill with
out express enabling legislation on the
part of Congress. A trustees right and
duty to protect by suit the subject matter
of the trustees are in nowise affected be-
cause ho is without private interest In
that subject matter. Yet as regards inter-
state railroad transportation, of W hich the
United States is but trustee for all par
ties and interests concerned-a trustee
bound by its relations to the states as well
as individuals to sue at law or in equity
whenever such suit will aid in the dis
charge OF the trust.
Congress having provided the means.it
remained for the executive to put the Jaw
into execution aud that division of the
Government was bound under these laws
to deal with the situation in Chicago
in 1894"