Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1895-03-28

States supreme court today began
hearing arguments in the case of Debs,
president Of the Amer lean Railway
union, and others who participated
with him in the Chicago strike. The
case comes ND on appeal from the Chi
cago district court
Mr.. Trllmbull, for the defense, took
issue with the contention that the con-
stitutional provision for the regulation
Of commerce between the states gave
authority for such proceedings as this
in equity, but declared that this was
entirely contrary to the holding of the
courts, in support Of which position he
quoted various authorities But even
Ii this was correct, the present case was
one confined entirely to the state Of
Illinois
Continuing, Mr. Trumbull declared
that the supreme court of the United
States had been overwhelmed with
cases growing out of strained con-
struction Of the constitution and he
thought 1t time to call halt. He con-
tended that the antitrust bill had no
bearing upon the case Of an association
OF railroad employees, but was intended
to prevent combinations, corporations
and trusts, as was made evident by the
fact that provision was made for the
seizure OF property. He asserted that
the injunction in the case had been is
sued without notice except In the news
papers. If this was true, 1t was In de-
fiance of congress, and II was not to be
supposed that everybody was colnpell-
ed to read the newspapers. He urged
In conclusion that Debs and his asso-
ciates were Illegally imprisoned and
asked for their release.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
A III
ney followed on behalf Of the govern
ment. He thought that when the ques-
ton should be properly ascertained
there would be very little difficulty at
arriving at q decision. He did not
suppose the court would find 1t neces-
sary to go into the general question Of
strikes and boycotts, which was in un-
trodden 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 con-
slider whether the antitrust law ap-
plies to conspiracies Of the kind in
which Debs and others were engaged.
The case was a peculiar one in that
none Of the parties to the present case
was engaged in the Chicago strike as
employs of any of the roads They
had organized for the purpose of boy
cotting the Pullman company and i'll
doing that proceeded to paralyze the
railroad companies which they were
doing when the injunction was issued.
The main object Of the organization
was to secure entire control of the rail-
roads of the country. He dwelt upon
the great injury done by the strike
which injury, he said, was irreparable
and asked that the court take cogni-
zance Of this fact as 1t was conceded
on all hands.
THE REAL QUESTION.
There could hardly be a question
that the strike was unlawful in it's as
poets, in its attempt at boycotting ana
controlling by combination the rail-
road traffic of the country The real
question was as to the jurisdiction Of a
court of equity and he contended that
1t had 1t in such a case as the present.
Mr.. Whitney contended In his reply
To the objection that the United States
was rot properly party to the pres
emit proceedings, having no interests
which were involved, that in a habeas
corpus proceeding 1t was immaterial
by what party the proceedings should
be inaugurated. Yet he contended
that the situation was one which called
for the interference of the government
authorities. He also commended that
the case was one in which 1t was proper
to invoke the aid of an equity court to
the extent of at least granting an In
junction, leaving the criminal features
OF the case to be considered by crimi-
nal court.
He argued the applicability OF the
antitrust law to such a combination
as that formed by Debs and the other
parties to the present proceedings, con-
tending that literal construction OF
the law could lead to no other conclu-
sion. He urged in conclusion that the
case could only be brought to the su.
preme court on appeal after the final
decision of the case below.
NO LAW FOR 1T.
Continuing he asserted that the Eng
fish chancery courts had never under
taken to enjoin the obstruction OF
railroads owned by private corpora
lions, nor had there been such pro-
ceeding in any of our state courts. In
reality this was a proceeding to punish
for conspiracy by an equity court, and
such a course was not allowable in adj
vance of congressional enactment. I'm
Ill such enactment, he had called upon
the court to prevent
Mr. Walker asserted the right of the
United tSates to invoke the aid Of ar
equity court to suppress a nuisance
and therefore such a court had juris
diction in this case. He referred brief
1y to the condition Of affairs in Chicago
when the appeal was made to the cir
cult court, which was. he said, for the
protection of the mails and I'M erstat'
commerce and for the Issuance of thu
writs to enjoin such Interference. HI
defended the right Of the government
to invoke protection of these interest!
in court of equity, asserting that suef
a course is authorized both by thu
statutes and the decision of the courts
He based his argument largely upor
the provisions Of the interstate com
merce act and upon the right OF tn
government TO protect mails.
Mr.. Walker concluded with the ad
journment of the court, at O'Clock
leaving only two arguments still to b,
made-that of Attorney General Oh
ney for the government and of Mr.
barrow for the petitioners.
CHASE WILL STAY AWHILE.
Deputy Marl0um Refused to Act DuriDl
Dicks Suspension