The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-26

which Debs and his associates were
engaged. The case was a peculiar one
in that none of the parties to the pres
ent case were engaged in the Chicago
strike as employees of any OF the
roads. They had organized for the
purpose of boycotting the Pullman
company and in doing that proceeded
to paralyze- the railroad companies.
which they were doing when the IL
junction was issued. The main object
OF the organization was to secure en-
tire control of the railroads of tho
country
He dwelt on the great injury DONE
by the strike. which injury, he said
was freparable, and asked that tn
court take cognizance of this fact as
1t was conceded on all hands. There
could hardly be a question that tn
strike was unlawful in it's aspects, in
IT'S attempts at boycotting and at con-
trolling by any combination the rail-
road traffic Of the country. The ques-
tfon was as to the jurisdiction Of a
court OF equity, and he contended that
II rad y in such a case aS the present,
Mr.. Whitney contended in reply to
the objection that the United States
was not properly party to the pres
ent proceedings, having no interests
winch were involved. that in a m oeas
corpus proceeding it was immaterial
by what party the proceedings should
be fnaugurated. Yet he contended
that the situation was one which called
for the interference of the government
authorities. He also contended the
case was one in which it was proper
to invoke the aid of an equity court to
the extent at least of granting an in
junction, leaving criminal features of
the case to be considered by criminal
court.
He urged the applicability Of the
antitrust law to such a combination
as that formed by Debs and the other
parties to the present proceeding, 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
Supreme court on appeal after the final
decision of the case below.
Mr.. Gregory opened his arguments
with reference to the question as to
whether the information in the case
was properly before the court and he
urged the case was not one for too
close scrutiny as the matter was one
involving the liberty of the citizens.
1t seemed to be a dangerous power to
commit to a single magistrate that he
might imprison without regard to the
facts or the law and that there could
be no appeal to the Supreme court
He contended that Debs and his asso-
cfates had not been enjoined from
ordering a strike" which was what
they had been guilty of, if guilty at
ALL
Regarding the Jurisdiction Of she
court below, Mr.. Gregory contended
there was none, because no federal
statute had been submitted under
which the case could be considered
there, except the antitrust law, and he
characterized the effort to proceed
nm hi 1ar ind Of if-6f oia1
strabism."
He regarded it as significant that
the government had virtually aban-
doned this law as a ground of proceed
ing Continuing, he asserted that the
English. chancery courts had never IN
dertaken to enjoin the obstruction of
the railroads owned by private corpora
tions, nor had there been such a pro-
ceeding to punish for conspiracy by
an equity court, and such a course was
not allowable in advance OF congress
sional enactment.
Mr. Walker asserted the right of the
United States to invoke the aid OF an
equity court to suppress a nuisance,
and therefore such court had juris-
diction in this case. He referred briefly
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 of inter-
state commerce. He defended the right
of the government to invoke protection
of these interests in a court of equity,
asserting that such a. course is author
ICED both by the statutes and the de-
cision of the courts. He based his ar
gument largely upon the provisions Of
the interstate commerce act and upon
the right of the government to protect
the mails. Mr.. Walker concluded with
the adjournment of the court at 4
o'clock. leaving only two arguments
still to be made-that of Attorney-Gen-
eral Olney for the government and of
Mr.. Darrow for the petitioners.