Eagle River Democrat. [volume] (Eagle River, Vilas County, Wis.) 1893-1896, 1895-06-03

p'> "M~
EUGENE V. DEBS,
Oeader of the Late Strike. Who is Remand
ed to Jail for Contempt of Court)
beyond the question of imprisonment of
the American hallway union officers be-
cause there is largely involved the prin-
cipie of the right of judges having juris-
dict;cn Of large interests by virtue of
receiverships created by them to prevent
labor troubles through the instrumental
ity of injunctions.
Importance of the Decision.
Nearly one-third of the railway prop
erty Of the United States being in the
hands of receivers, appointed by the fed
eral courts, the precedent to be estab-
lished has wide application. Technically
the application for writ of habeas cor
pus and certiorari arises from the case in
equity of the Union Trust company vs..
the Atchison, Topeka u Santa Fe road,
since the recevership under which the
circuit court exercises jurisdiction over
the Santa Fe and it's allied roads was
when the great railway strike was threat
ening, the receivers applied to Judge
Woods of the circuit court for the North
ern district of Illinois for an injunction
against the American Railway union to
prevent it from melting the employees to
SCrlEo. Judge w OOuS SlSueu luc OIucl
presented, which was sweeping one,
enjoining the officers Of the union from in
terfering with the mails or with inter-
state commerce, or from destroying prop
erty; from compelling or inducing the emf
, ployes of the road to strike by violence
or intimidation, or from aiding or abettlng
them to do any of these things.
The American Railway union decreed
strike on the Illinois Central road, one
of those included in the injunction, and
the events of that strike are matters OF
general knowledge. The officers of the
union were brought before Judge Woods
for contempt of court last December
Il. V. Debs, the president, was SEN
fenced to six months in jail and seven
others-George w. Howard, Sylvester
Keliher, L. w. Rogers, James Hogan,
William E. Burns, r. NJ. Goodwin and
Martin j. Elliott-were sentenced to
three months. | appears that the injunc-
ton had been personally served Oh the
first four officers, but Judge Woods held
that its publication in the newspapers
was sufficient service in itself for all the
defendants.
Claims Made by Deb's Counsel.
An application was made to the SUI
preme court for the release of the eight
officers of the union by writ of habeas
corpus, and pending decision of the SUI
preme court they have been given their
freedom under bail Counsel for Debs
and his associates based their application
on the grounds that their sentence with
out Indictment and trial by jury was in
viola ton of the constitution, particularly
it's fifth and sixth amendments; that the
information upon which they were con-
victed did not show any violation of the
injunction. Also that the injunction was
void, because the bill asking for it stated
no case of which the court could take
cognizance and was in effect a bill by the
government of the United States to main
tain the public peace and enjoin the vio
lations of the penal code. The arguments
before the Supreme court by G. 5. Oar
row and Judge Lyman Trumbull for the
defendants and Attorney General Olney
and Assistant Attorney General Whitney
for the government attracted much at
tention.
The decision Of the court was read by
Justice Brown and was unanimous,
there being no dissenting opinion. The
conclusion of the court as announced
in Justice Browns opinion, were that the
government has jurisdiction over every
foot of soil and every individual within
the boundaries of the government and
that while it was one Of limited powers,
it has sovereignty within those limita-
TONS 1t had power to invoke civil
courts, to remove Instructions to inter-
state commerce, and the civil courts had
the right to enjoin those who made OBJ
etructions to such commence. The in
for acts done in violation of the INDUCTION.
The circuit court, having final jurisdiction,
its act was not renewable today by the
Suprcme court on a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus and therefore the writ
was denied.
The Courts Opinion.
The opinion of the court in substance
was as follows:
The case presented is this The United
States finding that the interstate Transport
tatlon of persons and property, as well as
the carriage of the mails, is fOrcibly OBJ
structed, and that combination and con-
spiracy exists to subject the control of such
transportation to the will of the conspir-
ators, applied to one of their courts. sitting
as court of equity, for an injunction to re-
strain such obstruction and prevent carry
ing into effect such conspiracy. Two ques-
lions of Importance are presented:
1. Are the relations of the general govern
rnant TO interstate commerce and the trans
portation of the mails such as authorize
direct interference to prevent a forcibe OBJ
struction thereof?
ernmental affairs implies both power and
duty, has court of equity jurisdiction to
issue an injunction in aid of the perform
ance of such duty? First, what are the rela-
tions of the general government to inter-
state commerce and the transportation or
the mails? They. are those of direct super
vision. control and management. While Nn-,
der the dual systems which prevail with US.
| the powers of government are DISTRIBUTED
between the state and the nation, and While
the latter is properly styled a. government OF
enumerated powers, yet within the limits OF
such enumeration it has all the attributes OF
sovereignty. and in the exercise of those
enumerated powers acts directly upon the
citizen and not through the intermediate
agency of the state.
A Duty to Regulate Commerce..
Second, under the power vested in Con-
rresS to establish poStofficeS and post ROADS,
Congress has by mass of legislation estab-