St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-05-28
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS DENIED BY SU-
PREME COURT.
WHAT DEBs HAS TO SAY.
DECISION INFAMOUS AND
DEATH KNELL TO THE
WAGE SYSTEM.
WILL ABIDE WITH CoMPosURE
Remaining Cases May Not Be
PrOsecuted-HOwa Surren-
ders Himself.

ders Himself.
WklEHINGTON, May ~ The
United States supreme court today
denied the application Of Eugene V.
Debs, the strike leader, for a writ OF
habeas corpus. No more important
question, with the single exception of
the income tax, has come before the
supreme court within the past year
than the attempt of Eugene V. DebS
and other officers of the American
Railway union to secure reversal
of the sentence to Jail by Judge Woods
for interfering with interstate COM
merce and the running of the mails
in the railway strike of last summer.
The history of the case is still fresh
in the public memory, but it has i'm
portance beyond the question of the
Imprisonment of the A. R. U. leaders,
because there is involved the right of
judges having jurisdiction of large in
terests by virtue of receiverships Gre
ated by them to prevent labor troubles
through the instrumentality of injunc-
tions. Nearly one-third of the railway
property of the United States being
in the hands of receivers appointed by
the federal courts, the precedent to be
established has wide application.
Technically, the application for a writ
of habeas corpus and certiorari arises
from the case in equity of the Union
Trust company versus the Atchison,
Topeka & Santa Fe railroad, since the
receivership under which the circuit
court exercised jurisdiction over the
Santa Fe and It's allied roads was
created in that case. On the I'd of
July, 1894, when the great railway
strike was threatening, the receivers
applied to Judge Woods, of the cir
cult court for the northern district of
Illinois, for an injunction against the
A. R. U. to prevent it from melting
the employees to strike. Judge Woods
signed the order, which was a sweep
ing one, enjoining the officers of the
union from interfering with the mails
or with interstate commerce, or from
Ivy lllS pIOpCIly, VI IIOIu COIIl-
pelling or inducing the employees of the
road to strike by violence or intimida-
ton, or from aiding or abetting them
to do any Of these things. The A. r.
q. declared strike on the Illinois
Central, one of those included in the
Injunction, and the events of that
strike are matters of general knowl-
edge. The officers of the union were
brought before Judge Woods for con-
tempt of court last December. E. V.
Debs, the president, was sentenced to
SIX MONTHS IN JAIL,
and seven others, George w. Howard,
Sylvester Keliher, l.. w. Rogers,
James Hogan, William E. Burns, r.
M. Goodwin and Martin J. Elliott,
were sentenced to three months. 1t
appears that the injunction had been
personally served on the first four
officers, but Judge Woods held that
its publication in the newspapers was
sufficient service of itself on all the
defendants. An application was made
to the supreme court for the release
of the eight officers of the union by
a writ of habeas corpus, and, pending
decision Of the supreme court, they
have been given their freedom under
bail. Counsel for Debs and his asso-
ciates base their application on the
grounds that their sentence without
indictment and trial by jury was in
violation of the constitution, particu-
larly it's fifth and sixth amendments;
that the information on which they
were convicted did not show any vio-
lation of the injunction. Also that
the injunction was void because that
the bill stated no case of which the
court could take cogniZance, and it
was in effect bill by the government
of the United States to obtain public
peace, and enjoin violation of the
penal code. The arguments before
the supreme court of c.. S. Darrow
and Judge Lyman Trumbull, for the
union, and Attorney General Olney
and Assistant Attorney General Whit
ney attracted much attention. The
decision of the court was read by
Justice Brewer, and was unanimous,
there being no dissenting opinion. The
conclusion Of the court, as announced
in Justice Brewers opinion, was that
the government was having jurisdic-
ton over every foot of soil and in
dividual within the boundaries of the
government, and while it was of limit
ed powers, it had sovereignty within
those limitations. 1t had1 power to
invoke civil courts; to remove OBJ
structions to interstate commerce,
and the civil courts had the right to
enjoin those VINO made distractions
to such commerce. The injunction was
no bar to criminal processes for acts
done in violation to the injunction.
The circuit court having final juris-
diction, its act was not Renewable by
the supreme court on petition for a
writ of habeas corpus, and therefore
the writ was denied. The opinion of
the court, in substance, was as fol-
lows:
The case presented is this: The
United States finding that interstate
transportation of persons and property
as well as the carriage of the mails
is forcibly obstructed, and that COM
bination and
CONSPIRACY EXISTS
to subject the control of such trans
portation to the will of the conspira-
tors, applied to one of their courts,
sitting as a court of equity, for an in
junction to restrain such obstruction
and prevent carrying into effect such
conspiracy. Two questions Of impor-
taace are presented:
Ffrst-Are the relations Of the gen.
erel government to interstate COM