The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-05-28

That the bill fled IN this case dis
closed s-e~faf facts calling for tre exer-
cisa of the powers o. the court Is not
open 20 question. The picture drawn In
il OF the vast interests involved. not
merely % ;ne city 81 Chicago and cf the
state OF Illinois. but of al the states.
and the general eopfus,on into which tla
Interstate commerce. Of the country was
thrown through forci5le Interference with
that commerce, the attempted exercise ~
individuals Of powers belonging only 70
the government, and the threate1ed con-
tiruance of such snvasions OF pUhae
rights presents condition OF things
which called for rhe fullest exercise OF
all the powers OF the court. II ever there
was a special eX.gency presented. one
which demanded that the court should DO
All that courts should do. Il is apparent
on The face OF this bill. and we need not
turn TO the public history OF the day.
which only -eaffirns with emphasis AL
its allegations. The difference between a
public nuisance and a private nuisance
is that one affects the people a large and
the other simply the Individual The
quality OF the wrong is the same and
tha jurisdiction Of the courts over them
rests upon the same principles and goes
TO the same extent. The argument in
opposition does not question the jurisdic-
tton Of the court. but only the eXpedtency
Of The action OF the government in ap-
he seriously contended that the court has
jurisdiction 10 enjcin the obstruction OF
a highway by one person. but that It's
Jurisdiction ceases when the ohstructASn
Is a1y a hundred persOns.s II may be true,
as suggested. that in the excitement OF
passion. men Will pay little heed 10 pro-
cesses issued from the courts. and il is
said by counsel In argument that 1T
would have sayored somewhat of the
ridiculous 10 have read a writ Of injunc-
ton 10 Lees army during the late civil
war II Is doubtless true that Inter
arma leges silent and in the throes of
the rebellion or revolution the processes
of civil courts are of little avail, for the
power of the courts rests on the general
support OF the people and their recogni-
ton OF the fact that peaceful remedies
are the true resort for the correction OF
wrongs. But does not counsel's argument
imply TOO much? II is not 20 be assumed
that these defendants were conducting a
rebellion or inaugurating a revolution, or
that they and their associates were thus
placing themselves beyond the reach of
the civil processes of the courts. What
ever any single individual may have
thought or planned. the great body of
those who were engaged in these trans
actions contemplated neither rebellion
nor revolution, and when in the due order
of legal proceedings the question OF right
and wrong was submitted 10 the courts
and by them decided. they unhesitatingly
yielded 10 their decisions. The outcome.
by the very testimony OF the defendants,
attests the wisdom OF the course pursued
by the government. and that IL was well
not to oppose force simply by force but
TO invoke the jurisdiction and judgment
OF those tribunals 10 whom 10y the con-
stitution and i'm accordance with the set
tied conviction of all citizens, Is COM
mitted the determination of questions OF
right and wrong between individuals.
masses and states.
"A most earnest and eloquent appeal
was made to us in eulosy OF the heroic
spirit of those who threw up their employ
ment and gave up their means OF earning
a living, not in defense of their own
rights. but in sympathy for and to assist
others whom they believed TO have been
wronged. Ne yield 10 none in our admi-
ration OF any act of heroism or self-sacri-
fee. but We may be permitted to add that
X is a lesson which cannot be learned too
soon nor too thoroughly that under this
government and by the people the means
OF redress of all wrongs are through the
courts and the ballot box, and that NJ
wrong real or fancieG, carries with IL
the legal warrant to invite as a means Of
redress the co-opera ton of mob with its
accompanying acts OF violence.
I'VE have given 10 this case most care
full and anxious attention. for we realize
that ii touches closely questions of SUI
preme Importance 10 the people of this
country. Summing up our conclusions. we
h0li that the government of the United
States is one having jurisdiction over
every foot OF soil within its territory, and
acting directly upon each citizen; that
while il has a government of enumerated
powers. IL has within the limits of those
powers all the attributes of sovereignty;
that it has committed 10 its power over
f,s Nj ofc1 Of
the mail: that the powers thus conferred
upon the national government are not
dormant, but have been assumed and put
into practical exercise by legislation Of
congress; that in the exercise of those
powers il is competent for the nation TO
remove all distractions upon highways,
natural or artificial. TO the passage OF in
terstate commerce or the carrying of the
mail; that while II may be competent for
the government Through the executive
branch and IN Use OF the entire executive
power of the nation) 10 fOrcibly remove
all such obstructlons, il is equally within
its competency 20 appeal to the civil courts
FOR an inquiry and determination as TO the
existence and character OF any alleged OBJ
ssruction. and If such are found 10 exist
or threaten 10 occur, TO invoke the powers
Of those courts 70 remove or restrain such
obstacles: that the jurisdiction OF
courts 10 interfere in such mat
terra by injunction is one recog-
nize1 from ancient times and ~
undoubtable authority; that such jurisdic-
tion is not ousted by the fact that the OBJ
structions are accompanied by or consist
OF acts in themselves in violations OF Grim
inal laws: that the proceeding by iniunC-
tion is OF a civil character. and may be
enforced by proceedings in contemplation
that the penalty for such a violation OF
such Injunction is no substitute for and no
defense 10 n prosecution for any criminal
oTense committed I'm the course OF such
violation. that the complaint fled in this
case showed clearly an existing obstruc-
ton Of artificial highways for the passage
~ Interstate commerce and the transmits
sion of mais-an obstruction not only
temporarily existing. bur threatening 10
continue: that under such complaint the
circuit court had power 70 issue it's pro-
cess Of injunction: that il having been is
sued and served on defendants the cir
cult court had authority - inquire wheth-
or its orders had been 3isobeyed and when
IL found that they had been. then 10 pro-
ceed under section - of the Revised stat
utoS. which grants power TO punish by
fine or imprisonment disobedieuce by any
party or person. 20 any lawful writ. pro-
cess orders. rule. decree or command
and 20 enter the order o. punishment com
vlained of. and. finally. that the circuit
court having fan jurisdiction in the prem
isos. its findings of ths fact OF disobedi-
eurr is not open 10 review on habeas cor
pus in this or any other court.
1--WE enter into no examination az the
ar of July = 1890 1as. statute 9o). upon
which the circuit court relied mainly 10
sustain its jurisdiction. II must not be
un1ersf al from this that We dissent from
the conclusions Of that court in reference
- the Score Of the act hut simply that we