The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-05-28
Sentence Of the Lower Court. which
Had Final Jurisdiction I'm the Mat
ter, Must BE Carried Out.
COMMENT ON THE DECISION
BRIEF INTERVIEWS WITH JUDGE
WOODS AND ATTORNEY DARRow.
Action of the Court Denounced by Mr.
Debs-Howard Anxious to Go Back
10 Prison and Serve His Time.

WASHINGTON. May 27.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day denied the ap-
plication of Eugene V. Debs. the strike
leader. for a writ of habeas corpus. This is
a victory for the government. The decision
of the Court was read by Justice Brewer.
and was unanimous, there being no dissent
ing opinion. Ali the contentious OF the gov
ernment were sustained. The conclusions
of the court. as announced i'm Justice Brew
er's opinion, were that the government OF
the United States was one having jurisdic-
ton over every foot of soil and over every
individual within the boundaries OF the
United States, and that. while IL was one OF
limited powers it had sovereignty within
these limitations. Ii had power 10 invoke
civil courts to remove Instructions. to in
terstate commerce. and the civil courts had
the right to enjoin those who made OBJ
structions to such commerce. The injunc-
ton was no bar TO criminal processes for
acts done in violation of the injunction.
The Circuit Court having final jurisdiction.
its act was not renewable by the Supreme
Court on a petition for a writ OF habeas
corpus and, therefore, the writ was de-
MED.
No more important question, with the
single exception of the income tax. has
past year than the attempt OF Eugene v.
Debs and the other officers of the Ameri-
can Railway Union 10 secure reversal OF
their sentences to Jail by Judge Woods for
interfering with interstate commerce and
the running of the mails in the great rail-
way strike of last summer. The history OF
the case is still fresh in the public memory
but IL has Importance beyond the mere
question of the Imprisonment of the Ameri-
can Railway Union officers, because there
is largely involved the principle of the right
of Judges having jurisdiction OF large in
terests by virtue of reeeivershiDs created
by them to prevent labor troubles through
the instrumentality of injunctions. Nearly
one-third of the railroad property oil the
United States being in the hands OF re-
ce;vers appointed by the federal courts. the
precedent to be established has wide apph-
cation.
Technically, the application for writ oil
habeas corpus and certiorari arose from
the case in equity of the Union Trust Com
pany against the Atchison. Topeka * santa
re road, since the receivership under wnicn
the Circuit Court exercised jurisdiction
over the Santa Fe and its ailleu roaus WAS
created in that case On the "a OF 1uls,
lS94 when the great railway strike VAS
threatening the receivers applied 10 Judge
Woods of the Circuit Court, Tor the NoItb-
ern district of Illinois for an inJdnou1n n,n =,
preyent il from melting the empioyes 10
strike. Judge Woods signed the oruer pr
sented. whicn was sweeping one, ,s,,,,s snI1r,ns
with the mails or with lntersta.e Soi-
merce. or from destroying property from
compelling or inducing the empioyes Oh ,., tne
road TO strike by violence or intimidation.
or from aiding or abetting them 10 90 any
of these things. The American RAILWAY
Union decreeo strike on the iiino,S IN "a, III sl-
trail road one of those included In the ln-
junction and the events OF that strike are
matters of general knowledge -
The officers OF the union Mers t o,ous ',r, los,
fore Judge Woods for contempt OF court idse
December. r.. V. Debs. the president was
sentenced to six months I'm Jail anu seNsu
others, George w. Howard, Sylves'er, MI
her n. w Rogers, James Hogan, VIM r..
Burns ROY Nj. Goodwin and Martin ,.
Elliott were sentenced 10 three months IL
appeared that the injunction had Deea pei
sonally served on the first tour ofncers,
but Judge Woods held that its publication
i'm the newspapers were sufncient service
i'm itself for all of the defendants.
An application was maoe TO the Supreme
Court for the release OF the eight oncefs
of the union by a writ OF haDeas corpus
they nave Deen given their freedom under
BAH Counsel for Debs and his associates
based their application on the grounds ina.
their sentence without indictment and trial
by jury was in violation of the Constitu-
ton particularly its iiftn and sixth amend
ments; that the IN lniormation id n, opon ~nsn ysai
lation of the injunction. Also. that the In
Junction was void, because the bill ask
court could take cognizance and was In
effect bill by the government or the
United states to maintain the public peace
and enjoin the violations OF the penal code.
The arguments before the Supreme Court
by c. :. Darrow and Judge Lyman Trum-
bull. for the union, and Attorney-ge
the government attracted great attention
at the time they were made.