The herald., 1895-03-27

were conducted and which strongly APP
| pealed to the imagination as well as to
| the passions of men. It's action was de-
nounced from the outset as novel and un-
precedented so that it even became sxpe,
| dent to publicly proclaim the right and
| familiar principle that for the execution OF
national functions, every foot OF every
| state is national soil and national proper
~. Since then the same policy has been
! persistently pursued and the Government
bill in equity. the injunction and the pro
csedings for contempt have all been loudly
condemned as anomalous, extraordinary
and revolutionary. To such charges there
could DO no more decisive answer than is
furnished by this debate and by the con-
ten tions of the respective parties.
promptly followed by Mr.. Darrow in the
interest of the petitioners. There was no
interruption of the Attorney General dur
ing the progress of his argument by any
member of the court and he received the
closest attention.
agreed with Mr.. Olney that the case was
one of vast importance. Not only was it
of importance to the corporations, but to
untloss millions Of working people: He
asserted that the Attorney General had
overlooked the interests of this latter class
in his argument, as he had also over
looked the fact OF the danger to civil lib
erty embraced in the case. He replied
with some warmth to Mr.. Olney's criti-
csm of the failure of the state courts to
take proper cognizance OF the acts OF VIC
lence 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 on,
but there was no excuse under the law for
appealing to the federal courts.
He then took up the legal aspect OF the
case. criticsing what he asserted to be
the abandonment by the Government of
under the antitrust law. The search for
a precedent for an action like the present
under the common law powers had been
in vain. both on the part of counsel for
the petitioners and the Government. He
contended that the interstate commerce
act was not applicable, as the law was
enacted for the purpose OF dealing with
and restricting the operations OF the
railway corporations. 1t was charged
that the officers of the American Railway
Union had sent kilograms ordering
strikes, but it had been shown that
these kilograms haa advised obedience to
the law. The original bill itself was free
from such charge. II then. these men had
committed no offense, there was no power
in the country to commit them for con-
tempt.
In almost every word uttered by the At
torney General this court is urged, said
Mr.. Darrow, not to interfere because
these men were guilty of unlawful acts
and because the consequences OF these
acts were serious.
Could the entire power of the courts be
resorted to because Congress had not seen
fit to provide an adequate penalty for
such state of affairs as pictured by the
Attorney General did really exist in Chi
cage, it should have been dealt with
through: the military and not through the
courts. What was needed was the dis
play of force, and not the order of court
in such an emergency.
Mr.. barrow concluded with personal
appeal on behalf of his clients. He con-
tended their acts were not criminal. He
could say on behalf of his clients that,
although they might have been mis-
guided and unwise, they had acted from
the highest and purest motives. When a
down their implements of labor, not be-
but because the bread had been taken
have no right to say they are criminals.
the position of others, but this court
should endeavor to and should realize that
the petitioners in this case are representa-
tives of the great laboring element of this
country, upon which the country must
so largely depend for its safety, prosperity
and progress. Mr.. Darrow's argument
was the last in the case, and when he had
finished, the court proceeded with other
business on its calendar. A decision will
probably be rendered before the adjourn
mept in Nav