Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-26
THE CASE OF DEBS
Assistant Attorney General Whitney's Ar
gument in Behalf of the Government.
He Contends That the Equity Court
Contention for the Applicant.

After The Stars report of the Supreme
Court proceedings in the Debs case closed
yesterday afternoon, and when Mr.. Trum-
bull concluded his argument, Assistant At
torney General Whitney followed on be-
half of the government. He thought that
when the question should be properly as
certained there would be very little diff
Guilty in arriving at decision. He did not
suppose the court would find it necessary
to go into the general question of strikes
and boycotts, which was an untrodden field
for the Supreme Court and involved points
on which the courts and the text writers
SO far as they had dealt with the matter
were divided. The main object of the A.
R. organization was to secure entire con-
troll of The railroads of the country. There
could hardly be a question that the strike
was unlawful in all its aspects in its at
tempt at hoycotting and at controlling by
combination the railroad traffic of the coun-
try. The real question was as to the juris-
dictlon of court of equity, and he con-
tended that it had in such case as the
present
Judicial Strabismus.
Mr.. Gregory then followed in behalf Of
the petitioners. Regarding the jurisdiction
of the court below, Mr.. Gregory contend
ed that there was none because no federal
statute had been submitted under which
the case could be considered there, except
the antitrust law, and he characterized
the effort to proceed under this law as
"a kind of judicial strabismus.'' He re-
garded 1t as significant that the govern
ment had virtually abandoned this law as
ground of proceeding and continuing he
asserted that the English chancery courts
had never undertaken to enjoin the OBJ
struction of railroads owned by private
corporations, nor had there ever been such
a proceeding in Sfaf4 in,
this country. In reality this was a pro-
ceeding to punish for conspiracy by an
equity court and such course was not
allowable in advance of congressional en-
actment. Until such enactment. it must
be left to the states to deal with these
questions for themselves.
Mr.. Gregory attacked the antitrust law,
devoting himself especially to section 4,
which grants jurisdiction to circuit courts
in cases of conspiracy, as defined by the
law, conteuding that the principal was in
violation of the constitutional guarantees
and characterizing it change of form
which might lead to the loss of civil lib
erty. 1t was an evasion of the right to
trial by jury. He did not believe that the
interests of the people could be promoted
by committing them to the guardianship Of
chancery court. Mr.. Gregory also refer
contended that it was not applicable unless
the government had been aggrieved by the
proceedings it sought to restrain. He asked
the court to proceed with caution in deal
ing with questions involving constitutional
rights, saying the right to trial by jury
should be maintained. and that without this
right civil liberty could not exist. He
closed by saying that it is to this court
that the people look for the vindication
and preservation of their constitutional
rights.
Mr.. Walker for the Government.
Mr.. Edwin Walker, special attorney for
the government, made the closing argument
of the day. He said that after listening to
the arguments for the petitioners, he was
at a loss to know what they were contend
ing for. For instance, he had not been able
to determine what constitutional right Mr.
Gregory had been fearful of losing, and the
loss of which he had called upon the court
to prevent. Mr.. Walker asserted the right
of the United States to invoke the aid of
an equity court TO suppress a nuisance, and
therefore such court had jurisdiction in
this case. He referred briefly to the con-
dition of affairs in Chicago, where the APP
peal was made to the circuit court, which
was. he said, for protection of the mails
and of interstate commerce, and the issu-
ance of the writ was to enjoin such inter-
ference. He defended the right of the gov
eminent to invoke protection of these in
tereStS in a court Of equity, asserting that
such a course is authorized both by the
statutes and the decisions of the courts
Mr. Walker based his argument largely
upon the provisions of the interstate COM
merce act and upon the right of the gov
eminent to protect the mails. Mr.. Walker
concluded with the adjournment of the
court at o'clock.