The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-03-26
THE HABEAS CORPUS MATTER
Able Attorneys Arraig ned on Both
Sides of the A. r. U. Case
Some Very Nice Technical .Points o' Ii"
Raised-The Principal inject
of the A. r. U~

are LYMAN Trumbull, S. S. Gres DRY ah'
C. S. Darow. Attorney General oihey
Assistant Attorney General Whlu ley ant
Edwin Walker, special United 81 ates d,
torney, appeared for the Cover nmeh'
Debs and his associates ask for WITH .
habeas corpus relieving them froi .n'
sentence of imprisonment impose< oS
Judge Woods.
IT. was 12:4O when the case was caA eo
and Mr. Trumbull addressed the court II
sunport of a motion made by himself til a
counsel be heard in behalf of the petition
ers and that thew be allowed three hour
each for the presentation of their SIDE u
the case.
allowed on each Slde 80
Mr.. Trumbull tnen proceeded with ms
argument on the merits OF the case, out
lining the points as above Set 1orth' ~
has been long while since Mr.. Irum pull
appeared in the court but he was recog-
nized Immediately and there were many
favorable comments upon his hale ana
venerable appearance. lie spoke without
notes and confined himself closely to the
facts and arguments set forth IN the prIei
OF the petitioners.
He characterized the proceedings as eX.
traordinary and the statements in the bill
of equity as relentless. He declared the
statements made in it had only been
sworn to by an unknown person, man
who for aught he knew had been picked
up on the street for the purpose.
He called attention to the fact that the
road of the stockyard company was only
a local road, but did not question that
some of the twenty-five roads entered IN
the bill were engaged in an interstate
traffic. He contended that the primary
objects of the American Railway Union
to bring about a peaceful adjustment OF
the difficulties between the Pullman COM
pany and its employees, and said this
was praiseworthy. Furthermore, he de-
clared that the object would have been
accomplished but for the refusal OF the
Pullman officials to grant any concessions.
He said it was an insult to every intelli-
gent citizen to say, as was said in the bill,
that it was as necessary to carry the Pull
man sleepers as it was to carry the mail.
He also argued the right of the railroad
and Pullman employees to quit work when
they chose, and criticized the language OF
the bill in characterizing this action on
their part as boycott. He also took ex-
ception to 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 transportation of mails or of interior
ing with interstate commerce. The great
question Wa he said, whether court of
equity hau jurisdiction in a case OF the
character of the one under consideration,
and proceeded to argue the constitutional
bearing on the question. He did not be-
lieve it competent for Congress to confer
upon courts of equity jurisdiction in any
but equity cases, and he insisted that
Congress. had never undertaken to confer
such prerogative. The present case in
volved criminal offense. Had ever a
case occurred when a court of equity had
Tod fn a ri fr
hitting a criminal act-burglary or MUIR
der for instance? If the petitioners had
been guilty as 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 for the reg
ulation of comm cree between the states
gave authority for such a proceeding as
this in equity, but declared this was entirely
contrary to the holding OF the court, III
support of which position he quoted var
ious authorities, but even if this was cor
rect the present case was one entirely con-
fined to the st ate of illinois.
Con sinuing, Mr.. Trumbull decl AIRED the
Supreme Court of the United States had
been overwhelmed with cases growing out
of strained construction of the constitu
ton, and he thought it time to call a
halt He contended that the antitrust
bill had no bearing on the case of an as
ISOLATION of railway employees, but was in
tended to prevent combinations, corpor-
atoms and trusts which was made evil
dent by the fact that provision was made
for seizure OF property. He also insisted
the Injunction in the case had been is
sued without notice except to the news
papers. If this was true it was in def
ance of Congress and it was not to be sup
posed that every body was to be compelled
to read newspapers. He urged, in con-
cluson, that lDebS and his associates were
illegally impri soned and asked for their
release.
Assistant General Whitney followed on
behalf of the government. He thought
that when the Question should be ascer-
tanned there wor1ld be very little difficulty
in arriving at a decision. He did not sup
pose the court would find it necessary to
go into the general question of strikes and
boycottS which was an untrodden field
for the Supreme Court and involved
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 consider whether the anti
trust law applies TO conspiracies of the
kind in which Debs and his associates
We're engaged. The case was a peculiar
one, in that none OF the parties to the
present case was engaged in the Chicago
strike as employees of any of the roads
They had organized for the purpose of
boycotting the Pullman Company ana in
doing that proceeded to paralyze the rail
road companies, which they were doing
when the injunction was issued. The
main object of the organization was to
secure entire control of the railroads of
the country.
He dwelt on the great injury done bv
the strike, which injury, he said, was II
reparable, and asked that the court take
cognizance of this fact, as 1t was conceded
on all hands. There could hardly be a
question that the strike was unlawful in
its aspects, in its attempt at boycotting
and at controlling by combination the
railroad traffic of the country. The real
question was as to the jurisdiction of
court of equity and he contended that it
had it in such case as the present.
Mr.. Whitney commended in reply to the
objection that the United States was not
properly party to the present proceed
ings. having no interests which were in
volved; that i'll a habeas corpus proceed
ing it was immateral by what party the
proceedings should be inaugurated. Yet,
he contended that the situation was one
which called for the intel ference of the
Government authorities. He also con-
tended the case was one in which it was
pr per to invoke the aid OF an equity court
TO the extent ct least of granting an in
junction, leaving the criminal features of
the case to be considered by a criminal
court. He argued that the applicability
or tile antitrust law to such a combina-
tidn as that formed by Debs and the
other parties to the present proceeding,
contending that a literal construction OF
lou, to otb ar