The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1895-03-28
THE NATIONS POWER
ATTORNEY-GEN OLNEY'5
ARGUMENT.
He Defends the Governments Proceed
ing in the Chicago Strike AS Being
Justified Under the Provisions of In
terstate Commerce Act.

Washington, March 27.-The hearing
on the application of Eugene V. Debs
and others for a writ of habeas cor
pus for their release from Imprisonment
was resumed promptly on the opening
of the Supreme court of the United
States yesterday. Attorney-General
Olney said 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 show, that, as he viewed the mat
ter, that it had. He passed Immediately
to the consideration of the strike
as violation of interstate
commerce relations. Intercourse and
transportation between the states and
all the instrumentalities of either are ad-
mittedly parts of interstate commerce.
Having power to control it congress has
not permitted the power to lie dormant,
but has freely and decisively exercised
it. He then enumerated several of the
federal laws bearing on the questions
Of interstate traffic, including those APP
plying to the mail service, those relat-
ing to the carrying of live stock and
those requiring the use of certain kinds
of brakes, etc. He continued: "By the
act the principles in accordance with
which interstate transportation shall be
conducted are laid down and defined,
their violation is inhibited under severe
penalties, and, to crown the whole, all
the interstate commerce railroads of the
country are practically put in charge
Of a commission which is to see to it
that their duties as interstate carriers,
as present. d by congress, are faithfully
discharged
q pXiSfpnNp of
an evil of greater magnitude, congress,
by an act Of Oct. 1, 1888, made provision
for the creation Of boards Of arbitration
TO seUL1p controversies peyweez. ref.-
road companies and their employees
when such controversies are having the
fleet of hindering and interrupting
Interstate commerce.
The attorney general admitted that
it was the duty of the state authorities
to deal with certain phases of the Of
lenses committed, and said: eff they
had done so promptly and vigorously
the interruption of interstate railroad
transportation might possibly have
ceased. but instead of their doing this
they allowed day after day to pass
marked either by total inactivity or by
effort so ill-directed and inadequate as
20 aggraVate all the evils of the situa-
ton. Hence it became necessary for the
government for the suppression of the
tense of individuals, but in obedience to
it's obligations to protect interstate
commerce, and because it is the duty of
every government to exercise it's func-
tons whenever occasion requires"
Mr.. Olney passed on to the cOnSidera-
ton Of the means at the command Of the
government to step in, not only in de-
strike, the principal Of which was the
courts, which must be depended upon
so far as practicable to deal with it.
Mr.. Darrow opened by saying that he
agreed with Mr.. Olney that the case
was one Of vast Importance to count
less millions of working people. He re-
piled with some warmth ito Mr.. Olney's
criticism of the failure of the state
courts to take proper cognizance of the
acts of violence accompanying the
strike, declaring that the state had ever
been anxious to preserve peace and was
capable of doing so. If the contrary
had been true the United States troops
could be called in; but there was no ex-
cuse under the law for appealing to the
Federal courts. Mr.. barrow con-
tended that the interstate commerce
act was not applicable, as that law was
enacted for the purpose OF dealing with
and restricting the operations of the
railway corporations. He took up the
antitrust law and proceeded to show
that from his standpoint it was not APP
plicable to the railway union, but was
directed at abuses by monopolies. Mr.
DarroW concluded with a personal APP
peal in behalf of his clients. He con-
tended that their acts were not GRIM
inal. He could say on behalf of his
clients that, although they might have
been misguided and unwise, they had
acted from the highest and purest
motives. Mr.. Darrow's argument was
the last in the case and when he had
finished the court proceeded with other
business on it's call. It's decision prob
ably will be rendered before adjourn
ment in May.
n