Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1895-06-01
EUGENE V. DEBs.

rest and punishment by Judge Woods
for contempt of court, and the
application of the petitioners for
writ of habeas corpus. The
case was argued, it will be remem
bered, some weeks ago by Attorney
General Olney for the government and
c. $. Darrow for the petitioners,
the contention of the latter being that
the circuit court had no jurisdiction of
the original bill and therefore there
could be no contempt of court in fail
ing to observe the terms of the in
junction issued Hereunder.
Conclusion of the Coprt
The conclusion of the court was
that the government of the
United States was having jurisdic-
ton over every foot of soil and
over every individual within the
boundaries of the United States. and
that while it was one of limited pow
ers it had sovereignty within those
limitations 1t had power to invoke
civil courts, to remove distractions to
| interstate commerce, and the civil
courts had the right to enjoin those
who made distractions to such COM
merce. The injunction was no bar to
criminal processes for acts done in
violation of the injunction.
Substance OF the Opinion.
| The opinion of the court was in sub
| stance as follows:
"The case presented is this The Gnited
| States. finding that the interstate transporta-
tion OF persons and property, as we'll Us the
carriage OF the mails, is forcibly obstructed
and that combination and conspiracy exists
| to subject the control of such transportation
| to the will of the consprators, applied TO one
OF their courts, sitting court of equity.
for an injunction to restrain such obstruction
and prevent carrying Into effect such con-
| spiracy. Two questions of Importance are
| presented
| Il. Are the relations of the general govern
ment to interstate commerce and the trans
portation OF the mails such as authorize u di-
rect interference to prevent forcible obstruc-
lion thereof:
- If authority exists, authority in
governmental affairs implies both power and
duty, has Il court Of equity the jurisdiction
| to issue en- injunction in aid of the per-
formance of such duty? What are the re-
| lations OF the general government to inter-
state commerce and the transportation of
the mailsy They are tsose of direct super
| vision, control and management While un-
der the dual system which prevails with US
the powers of government distributed
between the state and the nation, and
while the latter is properly styled govern
ment OF enumerated powers, yet within the
limits of such enumeration it has all the at
tributes OF sovereignty, and in the exercise OF
those enumerated powers acts directly upon
the citizen and not through the intermediate
agency OF the state.
Powers of General Government
Under the power vested in cong ress to es-
tablish post offices and post roads congress
has by mass of legislation established the
great post office system of the country, with
all its detail o. organization its machinery
for the transaction OF business, defining
what shall be carried and what not,
and the pricc OF carriage, and also prescrib-
ing penalties for all offenses against it, OBJ
viously these powers given to the national
government over interstate commerce and in
respect to the transportation of the mails were
rot dormant and unused. Congress had taken
hold OF these two matters, and, by various and
specific acts, had assumed and exercised the
powers given to 1t, and was in the full dis
charge OF its duty to regulate interstate COM
merce and carry the mails
IF the inhabitants of single state or n
great body OF them should combine to obstruct
interstate commerce or the transportation
OF the mails prosecutions for such onenses
had in such community would be doomed,
in advance to failure And If the cer-
taiEty of such failure was known and the
national government had no other way TO
enforce the freedom OF interstate commerce
and the transportation OF the mails than by
prosecution and punishment for interference
Herewith, the whole interests of the nation in
these respects would be NJ the absolute mercy
of d portion OF the inhabitants OF single
state"
Resort to the Courts.
The decision says, however, that there Is
no such impotency in the national govern
, ment. The strong arm of the national gov
ernment may be put forth to brush away all
Instructions to the freedom of interstate
commerce or the transportation OF the mails
II the emergency arises, the army OF the
/ nation and all its militia at the service OF
!, the nation TO compel obedience to its laws. In
the present case the right to use force does
not exclude the right OF appeal to the courts
for judicial determination and for the
exercise OF all their powers OF prevention
Indeed, 1t Is more to the praise than to the
blame OF the government that instead of de-
termining for itself questions OF right and
wrong on the part of these petitioners and
their associates and enforcing that determina'
S ton by the club OF the policeman and the
, bayonet OF the soldier, 1t submitted all those
= questions to the peaceful determination OF
judicial tribunals, and invoked their consid'
: GRAFTON ana judgment as TO the measure OF 1T
1 powers
n Acts Worthy OF Admiration.
After further argument the opinion says
q "a most earnest ana eloquent appeal was
J, made to us in eulogy OF the heroic spirit o.