The record-union., 1895-03-26
Special to the REcoRD-UHIox.

preme Court OH Appeal.
Special to the RECoRD-UNION
WASHINGTON, March 25.-The United
States Supreme Court to-day began the
hearing of the arguments in the case OF
Eugene V. Debs, President of the Amer
lean Railway Union, and others Coun-
sci for defendants are Lyman Trumbull,
S. S. Gregory and G. S. Darow. Attorney
General Olney, Assistant Attorney-Gen-
eral Whitney and Edwin Walker, special
United States Attorney, appeared for the
Government. Debs and his associates
ask for writ OF habeas corpus relieving
them from the sentence of Imprisonment
passed upon them by Judge Woods.
1t was 1910 o'clock when the case was
called, and Mr.. Trumbuu addressed the
court i'll support of motion made by
himself that counsel be heard in behalf of
the petitioners, and that they be allowed
three hours for the presentation OF that
aide of the case. The motion was granted,
and three hours allowed on each side.
Mr. Trumbull then proceeded with his
argument on the merits of the case, out
lining the points as above set forth. 1t
has been a long while since MIR. Trum-
bull appeared in the court, but he was
recognized Immediately, ana there were
many favorable comments upon his hale
and venerable appearance. He spoke
without notes, and confined himself
closely to the facts ana arguments set
10rth in the brief Of the petitioners.
He characterized the proceedings as ex-
traOrdinary, and the statements in the
bill OF equity as relentless. lie declared
that the statements made in it had only
been sworn to by an unknown person,
man who for 8ugAt he knew had been
picked up on the street for the purpose.
He called attention to the fact that the
road OF the stock yard company was only
= local road; but ne did not question that
some OF the twenty-five roads entered in
the bill were engaged in an interstate
traffic. He COntelasd that the primary
objects OF the American Railway Union
were 10 bring about peaceful adjustment
OF the difficulties between the Pullman
company anu its employees, and said this
was QraIseWOrthy. Furthermore, he de-
Clareu that the bject would have been ac-
complished but for the refusal OF the
Pullman officials TO grant any conces-
sions.
lie said it was an insulttO every inIelli-
gent citizen TO say, as was said il this
bill, that 1t WAS as necessary TO carry the
Pullman sI1Jpers as 1t was to carry the
malls. lie also argued the right of the
railroad ana the Pullman employees to
The language OF the bill in characteriZing
this action on their part as boycott. He
also took exception TO the use OF the word
conspiracy as used in the bill, declaring
that the purpose of the strikers was that
OF preventing the hauling of sleeping
cars, and not that Of preventing the trans
portatlOu OF mails or OF interfering with
Interstate commerce..
The great question was, he said,
whether court OF equity had jurisdic-
tiOn IN case OF the character OF the one
under consideration, and proceeded TO
argue the constitutional bearing on the
question. He did not believe 1t compe-
tent for Congress to confer upon courts OF
equity jurisdiction in any but equity
cases, and he insisted that Cong ress had
never undertaken TO confer such prerOg-
atiyes. The present case involved a
criminal Oilense. Had ever a case oc-
CURED when q court of equity had at
tempted TO restrain 3 citizen from COM
Inlttlng a criminal act-burglary or muir
der, for instance? II the petitioners had
been guilty IS charged, they should have
proceeded against them in the regular
manner by indictment and trial by jury.
he took issue with the contention that
the constitutional provision Tor the regu-
latiou of commerce between the states
gave authority for such q proceeding in
this equity, but declared this was en-
tIrely contrary 10 the holding of court, in
support of which position he quoted va
Tious authorities, but even il this WAS
correct the present case was one entirely
confined 10 The State Of Illinois,
Continuing. MIR. IrumbulI declared
that the supreme Court of the United
States had been overwhelmed with cases
growing out of a strained construction OF
the Constitution, aud ne thought it time
to call a halt. lie cUntended that the
antitrust bill had no bearing on the case
OF an association OF railway employees
but was INTENDED TO prevent combina-
tions, corporations and trusts, which was
made evident by the fact that provision
was made for the seizure of property.
lie also asserted that the injunction in
the case had been issued without notice
except to the newspapers Ii this was
true II was III defiance OF Congress, and
IL was not 10 be supposed that every body
was TO be compelled 10 read newspapers.
lie urged in conclusion that Debs and
his associates were illegally imprisoned
and asked for their release.
Assistant Attorney-General Whitney
followed on behalf of the Government.
lie thought that when the question
EhouId be properly ascertained there
would be very little difficulty in arriving
at a decision. He did not suppose the
court would find it necessary to go into
the general question of strikes anu boy
colts, which was an unJrodden field Tor
the supreme Court, and involved points
on which the courts and the text writer's.
go lar as they had Gealt with the matter,
We're divided. 1t was, therefore, un-
necessary to consider what the antitrust
law applies 10 couspiracieS of the kind in
which Debs and his associates were en-
gagged.
The case was a peculiar one, in that
none OF the parties to the present case
We're engaged III the Chicago strik as en-
p!oyes OF any OF the roads. They had or
gahlZed ior the purpose OF boycotting the
pullman Company, and in doing That
proceeded TO paralyZe the railroad com
panles, which they were doing when the
injunction was issued. Tho main object
OF the organization was TO secure entire
control OF the railroads uf the country
lie dwelt Oh the great injury done by
the strike, which injury, he said. was ir-
TeparaDle, and asked that the court tajLa
cognlZance OF this TACT, as it was conceded
on all hands. There could hardly he =
question that the strike was unlawful in
its aspects III its attunlpt at bovcyttino
and at con utrol!iuE by combination the
railroad traffic ol the country. Tho real
question was as to the jurisdiction OF y
court of equity, and he cuntended thai il
had IL IN such Il case as the present.
Mr.. Whitney conteEdeu in reply to tho
objection that tho United States was MOI
properly party TO the present proceed
ings, having no Interests which were in
volved; thai in . haheas corpus proceed
ing it was inimaterial by what party the
proceedings should be inaugurated. Ye!
Le contended that the situation was one