The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-06-04
PLAYING THE DEMAGoGuE.

given undue prominence in the press
dispatches. 1t will do no good but
simply serve to still further disturb
the labor element, or that portion of il
which clings to the notions inculcated
by agitators against the right of the
government to enforce the law and
preserve the public peace.
But as the views of Altgeld have
been given SO much Importance it is
necessary that they receive some at
tention, that they may not go forth
undisputed.
He calls the decision ''the substitu-
ton of government by injunction for
government by the Constitution and
laws" and the striking down of trial
by jury" What he means by that is
found in this assertion:
The provision of the Constitution
that no man shall be deprived Of his
liberty without trial by an impartial
jury is practically wiped out by this
decision Of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and the thaory ;naI ours
is a government of law is now at an
end, for every community is now sub
ject to any whim or caprice which any
Federal Judge may promulgate, and if
Federal Judges can do this, then it will
not be long until State Judges will
follow their example"
This is given by Governor Altgeld,
the dispatch says, sin a signed article
as his views for publication" There
is no mistake, then, in his language;
we can take it as it stands.
Now, to begin with, does the Consti-
tuition make such provision as Alt
geld pretends? Does it declare that
mo man shall be deprived of his lib
erty without trial by an impartial
jury?" 1t certainly does not. Is not
every arrested person deprived of his
liberty, and also when committed for
trial? Are not justices of the peace
and police magistrates authorized to
deprive petty offenders of their liberty
on proof of guilt? May not the courts
impose penalties, which include both
fine and Imprisonment, for contempt
of their orders or DEGREES?
The Constitution provides that. mo
person shall be deprived of life.
liberty or property without due pro-
cess Of law" Also that I'm all GRIM
inal prosecutions the accused shall en-
joy the right to a speedy and public
trial by an impartial jury of the state
and district wherein the crime shall
have been committed" These rights
are sacred and must be maintained.
1t is not likely that the Supreme
Court of the nation would render a
decision against them.
The case which it reviewed was not
one involving "a criminal prosecution"
1t was not a trial for crime" within
the meaning of the constitutional pro-
vision as to the powers of the judiciary.
1t was the enforcement of an order of
court in a case of contempt, and in
1olved the power of the Federal gov
eminent to exercise its authority, in
State of the Union, to protect the
mails and secure the freedom of inter-
state commerce, by aid of the mill
tary and the civil power of the Fed
eral courts.
A United States court issued an in
junction which Debs and his associates
disregarded. He and they were ac-
cordingly committed for contempt. A
writ of habeas corpus brought the
whole matter before the court of last
resort, and the decision delivered by
Justice Brewer was the unanimous
opinion of that court. That fact alone
ought to convince most people that as
a legal proposition it is right. If the
court had been divided there might be
room for controversy. The substance
of it, as condensed by the New York
Journal, is this:
1. The Federal Government within
its enumerated powers is possessed
with all the attributes of sovereignty
that it has, therefore, jurisdiction
over every foot" of territory; that it
can enter thereon whenever such SOW
ereignty is threatened, and that it
''acts directly upon each citizen
. The postal service and control of
interstate commerce are of these emu
merated and therefore sovereign
functions; that it can and must main
tain them, remove distractions thereto,
and that in doing so it can use all
needed powers-the armed forces of
the land or the processes of its courts.
8. That the courts have jurisdiction
and can enjoin by civil proceedings
against acts that even involve criminal
4. The case on appeal clearly showed
that distractions existed, and that the
Injunction issued had been diSobeyed;
therefore the Circuit Court had the
right to inquire and to punish, if its
powers and processes were opposed and
1t had this power by sta
tute as well as usual procedure and
capacity to maintain jurisdiction.
5. That the Circuit Court in such a
case of contempt had full power. It's
decision could not be reviewed on ap-
peal.
The power of courts to punish for
contempt of their authority has always
been recognized. 1t is no new exercise
Of power in the Debs case. 1t came to
US in this country from old world ju-
Government by injunc-
ton" is a phrase improperly employed
n antithesis to government by the
Constitution and its laws Injunc-
ions may issue and if defied the court
nay enforce its authority, or injunc-
ions would be valueless.
A law of the United States in refer
snce to the Federal courts. which no
sane person disputes is constitutional,
provides that:
1.-THE said courts shall have power
20 impose and administer oaths, and
% punish by fine or imprisonment, at
he discretion of the court, contempts
# their authority" Revised Statutes,
Sec. 725.