Cottonwood report. [volume] (Cottonwood, Idaho) 1893-1901, 1895-06-07
d. 81 DECIDED }
49,
|Applid for a Writ Of HaA
gel rpus Denied
The ofac4rs 81 the American Railway
I hion Must Serve Their Sem 2
fences in Jail.

The 0fRc4rs 81 the American Railway
thfon Must Serve Their Sem
fences in Jail.
Washington, May 9.-The United
States supreme court today denied the
application of Eugene V. Debs, the
strike leader, for writ of habeas cor
pus. No more important question,
with the single exception of the income
tax, has come before the supreme court
during the past year than the attempt
of Debs and other officers of the Ameri-
can Railway Union to secure reversal
of their sentences to Jail by Judge
Woods, for interfering with interstate
commerce, and the running of mails,
in the great railway strike last sum-
mer.
The decision Of the court was read by
Justice Brewer, and was unanimous,
there being no dissenting opinion. All
contentious of the government were
sustained. The conclusions of the court
were that the government of the
every foot of soil and over every indi-
vidual within the boundaries of the
United States, and that, while it is
one of limited powers, it has sover-
eighty within these limitations. 1t
has the power to invoke the civil courts
to remove distractions to interstate
commerce, and the civil courts have the
structions to such commerce. The in
junction was no bar to criminal pro-
cesses for acts done in violation of the
injunction. The circuit court, having
| final jurisdiction, it's acts were not re-
viewable by the supreme court on the
petition for writ of habeas corpus,
and, therefore. the writ was denied.
The case has importance beyond the
question of Imprisonment of the Amer
lean Railway Union officials, as there
is largely involved the principle of the
judges having jurisdiction of large in
terests by virtue of receiverships created
by them to prevent labor troubles
through the instrumentality of injunc-
tions. Nearly one-third of the railway
property of the United States being in
the hands of receivers appointed by
federal courts, the precedent to be es-
tablished has wide application.
Technically, the application for a writ
of habeas corpus and certiorari arises
from the case in equity of the Union
Pacific against the Atchison, Topeka &
Santa Fe road since the receivership
under which the circuit court exercised
| jurisdiction over the Atchison & To-
peka and it's allied lines was created in
the case.
July 2, 1894, when the great rail-
way strike was threatened, the receiv-
ers applied to Judge Woods, of the cir
cult court of the northern district of
Illinois, for an injunction against the
American Railway Union, to prevent
it from melting its employees to strike.
Judge Woods signed the paper pre-
sented, which was sweeping one, en-
joining the officers of the union from
interfering with the mails or with in
terstate commerce, or from destroying
property, or compelling, or inducing
the employees of the road to strike by
violence or intimidation, or from aid
ing or abetting them to do any of these
things.
The union declared a strike on the
Illinois Central road, one of those in
cluded in the injunction, and the
events Of that strike are one of general
knowledge.
The officers of the union were brought
before Judge Woods for contempt of
court last December. E. V. Debs. presi-
dent, was sentenced to six months in
Jail, and seven others-G. w. Howard,
Sylvester Keliher, L. w. Rogers, James
Hogan, William Burns, Roy M. Godd-
win and Martin ]. Elliott-were sent
enced to three months. 1t appears that
the injunction had been personally
served on the first four officers. but
Judge Woods held that it's publication
in the newspapers was sufficient service
in itself for all of the defendants.
An application was made to the su-
preme court for the release of the eight
officers of the union by writ of ha-
beas corpus. Pending the decision of
the supreme court they were given their
freedom under bail.
Counsel for Debs and his associates
base their application ON the grounds
that their sentence, without indictment
and trial by jury, was contrary to the
constitution, particularly its fifth and
sixth amendments; that the informa.
ton on which they were convicted did
not note any violation of the in1unc-
ton; also that the injunction was void.
because the bill asking for it stated no
case of which the court could take cog
nizance, and was in effect bill by
the government of the United States to
maintain the public peace and enjoin
violations of the penal code. The ar
guments before the supreme court by
d. S. Darrah and Judge Trumbull, for
the union, and Attorney -Genreal Olney
and Assistant Whitney attracted great
attention.