The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1895-03-26
DEBS CASE HEARING
ARGUMENT BEFORE THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT.
The A. II. u. Leader md Associates
Seeking n Writ of abens Corpus
Indiana Case Decided.

way IuiUH, anu OlieiS WIZ par ICipdttu
with him in the Chicago strike of the sum
mer of 1894. The knowledge that the case
was to come UP did not attract so large an
attendance of distinguished people as were
present in the court room when the income
taxes were being presented, but the attend
ance, especially outside the bar, was con-
siderably in excess of that on ordinary
days and was greater than could be ac-
commodated with seats. 1t was noticeable
that those who were there gave very careful
attention to the proceedings. The counsel
numbered three on the side of the de-
PENDANTS, headed by Hon. Lyman Trumbuil
and including Messrs. S. s Gregory and c.
S. barrow. Attorney-general Olney. AS
sistant Encouragement Whitney and Ed
win Walker, special assistant United States
attorney, appeared for the government.
The early proceedings in the case to-day
developed that while the argument would
be extended, the question at issue was not
complex. Debs and his associates ask for
a writ of habeas corpus relieving them
from the sentence of imprisonment passed
on them by Judge Woods, of the United
States Circuit Court for the Northern dis
trict OF Illinois, in December last on the
charge Of contempt in failing to obey the
injunction of the court requiring them to
desist from interference with the interstate
transportation of the mails or passengers
or freight. and also from preventing en-
ployeS of the railroads concerned in trans
acting their business. The fact was soon
developed that the main contention of the
petitioners would be that the original bill
stated no case cognizabie in chancery, and
that, therefore,, the injunction was VOID,
and that the persons at whom ii was aimed
We're not bound to observe 1t. In support
of this proposition they asserted that With
out statutory authority from Congress the
government could maintain no such bill, and
that no authority could be found unless 1T
be in the act of 1890 known as the Sherman
antitrust act. But they contended ina
was applicable, that Section 4 of it. au-
thorizing such proceedings was unconsti-
ings in chancery in such a case it deprived
az defe tria, hv on i,,r ariai co under a p the sta s,xtn
amendment of the Constitution.
TRUMBULLS ARGUMENT.
1t was 12:40 when the case sas called ana
Mr.. Trumbull addressed the court in sup
port of a motion made by himself that
three counsel be heard in behalf of the pc
titioners and that they be allowed three
hours. The motion was granted and the
three hours allowed on each side. Mr..
Trumbull then proceeded with his argu-
ment on the merits of the case. outlining
the points as above set forth. 1t had been
a long while since Mr.. Trumbull appeared
in the court, but he was recognized i'm
mediately and there were many favorable
Ot -Alo Nv oia CAiS II
pearance. He spoke without notes and
confined himself closely to the facts and
petitioners. He characterized the proceed
ings as extraordinary, and declared the
statements in the bill in equity as reckless;
that the statements made in it had only
been sworn to by an unknown person, q
man who, for aught he knew. had been
picked up on the street for tiiat purpose.
He called attention to the fact that the
road to the StOck-yard and transit company
was only a local road, but did not ques-
fi0nL thnf Cnn1n Inf thn we ~ nCe
entered in the bill were engaged in inter-
state traffic. He contended that the pri-
mary object of the A. r. u. was to- bring
about a peaceful adjustment of the diff
culties between the PuIlman company and
it's employees, and said this was praise
this object would have been accomplished
but for the refusal of the Pullman officials
to grant any concessions. The great ques-
ton was, he said, whether a court of equity
had jurisdiction IN a case of the character
of the one under consideration, and pro-
ceeded to argue the constitutional bearing
of the question. He took issue with the
contention that the constitutional provisions
State gave authority for such a proceed
ing as this in equity, but declared this was
courts. in support of which position he
quoted various authorities. But even if
this were correct the present case were one
confined entirely to the State of Illinois.
Continuing, Mr.. umb declared that the
Supreme Court of the United States had
been overwhelmed with cases growing out
of a strained construction of the Constitu-
ton, and he thought it time to- calfa a
halt. He commended that an ANTITRUST bill
had no bearing on the case of an aSsOcia-.
ton of railroad employees, but was intended
to prevent combinations, corporations and
provision was made for the seizure of
property. He asserted that the injunction
except in the newspapers. If this was true
1T was in defiance of Congress-, and Ii was
not to be supposed that everybody was to
be compelled to read the newspapers. He
urged in conclusion that Debs and his as
~sociates were illegally imprisoned, and
asked for their release.
MI. WALKERS CONTENTION.
Assistant Attorney-general Whitney fol-
lowed on behalf of the government. He
thought that when the question should be
properly ascertained there would be very
little difficulty in arriving at a decision. He
did not suppose the court would find it nee
essary to go into the general question of
strikes and boycotts, which was an untrod-.
den field for the Supreme Court, and in
VOWED points on which the courts and the
text writers, so far as they had dealt with
the matter, were divided. 1t was there
fore unnecessary to consider whether the
antitrust law applies to conspiracies of the
kind in which Debs and others were en-
gagged. The case was a peculiar one, in
that none of the parties to the present case
was engaged in the Chicago strike as en-
ployes of any of the roads. They had or
ganized for the purpose of boycotting the
Il AlAtktCli iLAR0A . Ci3iAt III AOAtAS At1e@L RAOE
ceeded to paralyze the railroad companies,
which they were doing when the injunction
was issued. The main object OF the organ
ization was to secure entire control OF the
railroads of the country. He dwelt upon
the great injury done by the strike, which
injury was, he said, irreparable, and asked
that the court take cognizance of this fact.
as it was conceded on all hands. There
could hardly be a question that tine strike
was unlawful in its aspects, in its attempt
at boycotting and at controlling by CON-
bination the railroad traffic of the country.
The real question was as to the jurisdiction
of a court of equity, and he commended that
it had it in such a case as the present. Mr..
Whitney contended, in reply to the obiec-
ton that the United States was not prop
erly a party to the present proceedings,
having no interests which were involved,
that In a habeas corpus proceeding it was
by what party the proceeding
should be inaugurated. Yet he contended
that the situation was one which called for
the Interference of the government author
tiles. He also commended that the case was
one in which 1t was proper to invoke the
aid of an equity court, to the extent. at
least. of granting an Injunction. leaving
the criminal features of the case to be con-
sidered by Il criminal court. Mr.. Whitney
argued the applicability of the antitrust
law to such a combination as that formed
by Debs and other parties to the present
proceeding, ~contending that a liberal con-
struction of the law could lead to no other
conclusion. He urged, in conclusion. that
the case could only be brought into the
Supreme Court on appeal after the final
da0fsion nf the case lelow