The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-26
NO JURISDICTION CLAIMED.
Brilliant Attorneys COntending
for Point of Law.
Arguments of Honorable Lyman S.
TrumbuII, Assistant Attorney
General Whitney, s. S. Gregory
and Honorable Edwin Walker
The ACKNOWLEDGEMENT and Fire
Eating barrow to ClOse-WiIl
Debs Be Released.

Washington, March 25.-The United
States supreme court today began the
hearing of the arguments in the case
of Eugene V. Debs. president of the
a. r. u, and others. Counsel for the
defendants are Lyman Trumbull, S. S.
Gregory and C. S. barrow. Attorney
General Olney, Assistant General
Whitney. and Edwin Walker. special
United States attorney. appeared for
the government. Debs and associates
ask for writ of habeas corpus, re-
lieving them from the sentence of i'm
prisonment passed upon them by Judge
Woods.
The fact was developed that the main
contention of the petitioners would be
that the original bill stated no case
cognizable in chancery, and. therefore,
the injunction was void. and the per-
sons at whom it was aimed were not
bound to observe it. In support of this
proposition. they asserted that without
statutory authority from Congress, the
government could maintain no bill,
and no such authority could be found,
unless it be in the act of 1890. known
as the Sherman antitrust act. but,
they commended, this act was uncon-
stitutional because. involving proceed
ings in chancery in such case. II de-
prived the defendants on trial under
the penal statute of the right of trial
by jury, contrary to the sixth amend
nnpnt of the constitution.
1t was 12:40 when the case was called
and Mr. Trumbun addressed the court
in support of motivn made by him
self that counsel be heard in benair
of the petitioners. and that they be al
lowed three hours for the presenta-
ton of that side of the case. The mo-
ton was granted and three hours al
lowed on each side.
Mr.. Trumbull then proceeded with
his argument on the merits OF tne case,
outlining the points as above set
forth. 1t has been a long While since
Mr.. Trumbull appeared in court put
he was recognized Immediately, anu
there were many favorable comments
upon his hale and venerable appear
ance. He spoke without notes and con-
fined himself closely to the facts ana
arguments set forth in the br1et or the
petitioners
He characterised the proceedings as
extraordinary and the statements IN
the bill of equity as relentless. he de-
clared the statements made IN IL had
only been sworn ito by an unknown
nerson. a man who for aught he knew,
had been picked up on the street ioi
the purpose.
He called attention to the fact that
the road of the stock yard company
was only a local road. but did not
question that some of the twenty-tnree
roads entered in the bill were engaged
in an interstate traffic. He contended
that the primary object of the A. X. U.
was to bring about peaceful ADJUST
ment of the difficulties between the
Pullman company and its employees
and said this was praiseworthy. Fur
thermore, he declared, that the Cd
iect would have been accomplished
hut for the refusal of the Pullman
officials to grant any concessions. he
said it was an insult to every anteill-
gent citizen to say, as was salu III the
hill uhat it was as necessary to carry
the Pullman sleepers as 1t was 10 carry
the mails. He also argued the rlgnt OF
the railroad and Pullman employees TO
quit work when they chose ana crit
isized the language of the Dill IN cnar-
acterizing this action on lhe!r PalI as
a bovcott. He also took exception TO
inc 1sa of the word conspiracy, as
used in the bill, declaring that the pur-
nose of the strikers was that Oh pre-
Venting the hauling of sleeping cars
and not that of preventing the trans
nortation of mails or OF interfering
with interstate commerce.
He took issue with the contention
that the constitutional provision Tor
the regulation of commerce between
the sta te gave authority for sucn a
proceeding in this equity, put declared
This was entirely contrary to the hold
ing of the court, in support of which
nosition he quoted various authorities.
R1lt even if this was correct, the pres
o,t case was one confined entirely TO
the state of Illinois. :,
Sontinl1ing. Mr.. Trumbull declared
the Supreme Court of the United
States had been overwhelmed with
cases growing out of strained con-
struction of the constitution, ana ne
Thought it time to call a halt. He
contended that the antitrust pm hao
no bearing on the case or an assocla-
ton of railway employees, but was in
tended to prevent combinations. cor
norations and trusts, as was made evil
doni bv the fact that provision was
made for the seizure of the property.
He also asserted the injunction in the
case had been issued without notice,
except in the newspapers. II tnis was
true. it was in defiance of Congress,
and II was not to be assumed that
everybody was to be compelled to read
newspapers. He urged in conclusion
that Debs and his associates were il
legally imprisoned and asked for their
release.
Assistant Attorney-General Whitney
followed on behalf of the government
He thought that when the question
should be properly ascertained there
would be very little difficulty in arriv-
ing at a decision. He did not suppose
the court would find it necessary to
go into the general question of strikes
and boycotts, which was an untrndden
field for the supreme court and in
volved points on which the courts and
the text writer's, SO far as they had
dealt with the matter, were divided
1t was therefore unnecessary to con-
slider whether the antitrust law ap-
,olies IN conSnira cieS of the kind IN