Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-03-25
THE. CASE OF DEBS
An Echo of the Great Strike in the
Supreme Court.
APPLICATION FIR A HABEAS CORPUS
An Imposing Array of Counsel on
Both Sides.
MR.. TRUMBULL'S ARGUMENT

An echo of the great Chicago strike Of
last summer was heard in the United
States Supreme Court today, when argu-
nents were commenced in the case of Eu-
gene v. Debs and others for a writ of ha-
beas corpus. The principal question involved
in the case is the legality of the action of
the circuit court In issuing the injunction
against the strikers last summer.
When the case was taken up in the
court this afternoon. Mr.. Lyman Trum-
bull, in behalf of the petitioners, asked
that, on account of the Importance Of the
case, three attorneys upon his side be
heard. and the Attorney General making
no objection, this was agreed 10. This ac-
tion will carry the argument into tomor-
1ow Mr. C. S. Darrow and Mr.. S. s. Greg
ory will support Mr.. Trumbull in behalf
of the petitioners.
On account of the Importance of this
case, the government is represented in the
argument by the Attorney General In per-
son. who will make an oral argument up
holding the Jurisdiction of the circuit court
Mr.. Edwin Walker of Chicago. special
ing the strike troubles. will submit p brief,
ard Assistant Attorney General Whitney
will take part in the proceedings.
The Claim of Jurisdfctibn.
1t is Understood that the government will
rest its claims of Jurisdiction upon the fol-
lowing propositions: First, the United
States may invoke the aid of an equity
court to restrain a threatened public nui-
sance; second. the circuit court had juris-
diction under the bill to restrain the de-
fendants from unlawful interference with
or obstruction to the transportation of in
terstate commerce; third the court also
had frvrto foft 20 nnin and acfr he
defendants from hindering, obstructing and
preventing the transportation of United
States mails.
Each of these propositions. 1t is claimed.
was submitted to and carefully considered
by the circuit judge in a most exhaustive
opinion. The judgment of the court was
reached, it Is said after full argument Of
the counsel of the respective parties and
the presentation of ali authorities within
reach of counsel both in support and
against the claim of jurisdiction.
MIR. TrumbulPs Argument.
Mr. Trumbull opened the argument for
the petitioners this afternoon. He said
that the main question is whether the bill
states case over which court of equity
has Jurisdiction; if not, then the injunction
issued against Debs and his associates was
void. and the prisoners are entitled to their
discharge. Mr.. Trumbull held that the in
Junction was unlawfully issued without no.
disregard it. No person can be deprived of
life liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law, and to issue an injunction
without notice is not due process of law.
He said tina. provisions of the acts of Con-
gress clearly implied that no injunction or
restraining order shall issue until after no.
tice to the parties In this case an injunc-
ton, absolute in terms and perpetual. not
a restraining order, was issued in contra
vention of the provision, which orly au-
thorized a temporary restraining order af-
ter notice, before a final hearing in the
case. A distinction Is made between a
temporary restraining order and a writ of
injunction, and the latter never issues until
after notice and an opportunity to be
heard.
Reckless Statements.
Mr.. Trumbull in referring to tie injunc-
ton as extraordinary declared the state
ments in the bill in equity as reckless. He
declared the statements made in it had
only been sworn to by an unknown per-
son, a man who, for aught he knew, had
been picked up on the street for the prlr-
pose. He called attention to the fact that
the road of the stock yards and transit
company was only local road. but did not
question that some of the twenty-five roads
mentioned in the bill were engaged in inter
state traffic. He conten6ed that the pri-
mary object of the A. r. u. was to bring
about a peaceful adjustment of the diff
ficulties between the Pullman company and
it's employees, and said this was praise
worthy. Furthermore, he declared that this
object would have been accomplished but
for the refusal of the Pullman officials to
grant any concessions.
Pullman SIeepers and the Mails.
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 mails
10 ole v-iObf of
and Pullman employees to quit work when
they chose, and criticised the language of
the bill in characterizing this action on
their part as a boycott. He also took ex-
ception to the use of the word conspiracy
as used in the bill; declaring that the pur-
pose of the strikers was that of preventing
the hauling of the sleeping cars, and not
that of preventing the transportation Of
the mails or Of interfering with interstate
traffic.
= The great question was. he said, whether
a court Of equity had jurisdiction in case
of the character of the one under consid-
alton, and he proceeded to argue the con-
stitutional bearing Of the question. He did
not believe 1t competent for Congress to
confer upon the courts Of equity jurisdic-
tion in any but equity cases, and he in
sisted that Congress had never undertaken
to confer such prerogatives. The present
case involved a criminal offense. Had a
case ever occurred when a court of equity
had attempted to restrain a citizen from
committing a criminal act-burglary or
murder, for instance? II the petitioners
had been guilty as charged they should
have been proceeded against in the regular
manner, by Indictment and trial by jury.
The Regulation of Commerce.
He took issue with the contention that
the constitutional provision for the regula-
tion of commerce between the states gave
authority for such proceeding as this in
equity, but declared that this was entirely
contrary to the holding of the courts, in
support of which position he quoted yari-
Gus authorities.
But even if this were correct the present
case was one confined entirely to the state
of Illinois. Continuing, Mr.. Trumbull de-
clared that the Supreme Court OF the
United States had been overwhelmed with
cases growing out of a strained construc-
ton of the Constitution, and he thought it
time to call halt. He contended that the
anti-truSI 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 evil
dent by the fact that provision was made
for the seizure of property.
Mr.. HUmlin Has the Grin.