St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-05-28
are of little avail, for the
POWER OF THE COURTS


are of little avail, for the
POWER OF THE COURTS
rests on the general support of the
people and their recognition of the
TACT that peaceful remedies are the
true resort for the correction of wrongs.
but does not counsel argument imply
too much? Is it to be assumed that
these defendants We're conducting a
rebellion or inaugurating revolution
or that they and their associates were
thus placing themselves beyond the
reach of the civil process of the courts ?
Whatever any single individual NAV
have thought or planned. the great
body of those who were engaged in
these transactions contemplated neith-
er rebellion nor revolution, and when
IN the due order of legal proceedings
the question of right and wrong was
submitted to the courts and by them
decided, they unhesitatingly yielded to
their decisions. The outcome by the
very testimony of the defendants at
tests the wisdom of the course pur-
sued by the government and that it
was we'll not to oppose force simply
by force, but to invoke the jurisdic-
ton and judgment of those tribunals
to whom by the constitution and in ac-
cordance with the settled convict ton
OF all citizens is committed the deter
mination of questions of right and
wrong between individuals, masses and
states. A most earnest and eloquent
appeal was made to us in eulogy of the
heroic spirit of those who threw up
their employment, and gave up their
means of earning a livelihood, not in
6aflnSa rio
sympathy for others and to assist others
whom they believed to have been
wronged. We yield to none in our ad-
miration of any act of heroism or self
sacrifice, but we may be permitted to
add that it is lesson which cannot be
learned too soon or too thoroughly
that under this government of and by
the people the
MEANS OF REDRESS
of all wrongs are through the courts
and at the ballot box and that no
wrong, real or fancied, carries with
it legal warrant to invite as a means
of redress the cooperation of a mob
with it's accompanying acts of vio-
lence. We have given to this case
most careful and anxious attention,
for we realize that it touches closely
questions of supreme Importance to the
people of this country. Summing UP
our conclusions, we hold that the gov
ernment of the United States is one
having jurisdiction over every foot of
soil within its territory, and acting di-
rectly upon each citizen; that while it
is a government of enumerated pow
ers, 1t has within the limits of those
powers all the attributes of sovereign
ty; that to 1t is committed power over
interstate commerce and the transmits
sion of the mail; that the powers thus
conferred upon the national govern
ment are not dormant but have been
assumed and put into practical eXer-
else by the legislation of congress: that
in the exercise of these powers it is
competent for the nation to remove
all distractions upon highways, nat
ural or artificial to the passage of
interstate commerce or the carrying
of the mail; that while it may be
competent for the government
(through the executive branch and in
the use of the entire executive power
of the nation) to forcibly remove all
such distractions, it is equally within
it's competency to appeal to the civil
courts for an inquiry and determina-
tion as to the existence and the char
acter of any alleged obstruction, and
if such are found to exist, or threaten
to occur, to invoke the powers of those
courts to remove or restrain such OBJ
sTructions; that the Jurisdiction of
courts to interfere in such matters by
injunction is one recognized from an
cient times, and by indubitable au-
thority; that such jurisdiction is not
ousted by the fact that the Instructions
are accompanied by or consist of acts
in themselves violations of the GRIM
inal law; that the
PROCEEDING BY INJUNCTION
is of a civil character, and may be en-
forced by proceedings in contempt;
that the penalty for violation Of
such injunction is no substitute for
and no defense to prosecution for any
criminal offenSeS committed in the
course of such violation; that the COM
plaint filed in this case showed clearly
an existing obstruction of artificial
highways for the passage of interstate
commerce and the transmission of mail
an obstruction not only temporarily
existing, but threatening TO continue;
that under such complaint the circuit
court had power to issue it's process
of injunction; that, it having been is
sued and served on these defendants,
the circuit court had authority 10 IN
uuire whether it's orders had been dis
obeyed, and when it found that they
had been, then to proceed, under sec
ton 725, Revised Statutes, which grants
power "to punish, by fine or imprison-
ment disobedience by
any party - or any other person
to lawful writ, process, order, rule,
decree, or command and enter the
order of punishment complained of;
and. finally, that the circuit court, hav-
ing full Jurisdiction in the premises,
it's finding of the fact of disobedience
ia not open to review on habeas corpus
in this or any other court. We enter
into no examination of the act of July
@ 1890 (26 Stat, 209), upon which the
circuit court relied mainly to sustain
its jurisdiction. 1t must not be under
stood from this that we dissent from
the conclusions of that court in refer
ence to the scope of the act, but simply
that we prefer to rest our judgment
on the broad ground which has been
discussed in this opinion, believing 1t
of Importance that the principles under
living it should be fully stated and af-
firmed.
The petition for writ of habeas cor