The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-15
THE REMEDY BY INJUNCTION.

THE REMEDY BY INJUNCTION.
On the question of government by in
junction a city paper takes issue with the
Journal on the proposition that the Debs
case differed essentially from some of the
recent cases in which injunctions have been
granted 1t says:
Where is the line drawn? In the Debs
case the Pullman Company and the rail-
roads really invoked the power of the
United States government to aid them to
run Pullman cars. The strikers did not in
terfere with trains except Pullmans were
attached. There Is no reason why coal
company should not have an injunction as
Well as railroad company or a Pullman
Car Company. There is no reason why an
individual should not have one as we'll as
corporation.
This is an important question and should
be settled on right lines, as undoubtedly
1t will be in the end. AS the Journal views
1t the injunction in the Debs case was en-
tirely different in principle and in the
causes which induced it from any of the
recent ones. In that case the proceeding
for an injunction originated with the Uni
ted States government on the representa-
ton of the Postoffice Department that the
mails were being obstructed. The power of
the United States government was not in
voked by the Pullman Company and the
railroads. They were not even represented
by attorney in the proceeding. The motion
for an injunction was based on bill filed
in the Federal Court by United States
District Attorney Milchrist, at Chicago,
and a special solicitor appointed by At
torney General OlIey. They acted under
instructions by wire from the attorney gen.
eral AS first filed the bill asked the court
to enJoin the strikers from interfering with
the mails. but under orders from Washing
ton 1t was modified so as to enjoin from in
reference with any train engaged in in
terstate commerce. Judge Woods who sat
with Judge Grosscup in the case, said:
1t is not necessary to issue an injunction
to prevent interference with the mails for
such interference is in itself a crime for
which the guilty can be arrested and in
dicted: 1t is more necessary to issue re-
with interstate commerce. The only reason
for issuing an order at all is that 1t is a
means of meeting the present emergency,
for the process of arrest and indictment is
slow.
The injunctiona1 order named twenty
three railroads whose trains. either mail,
passenger or freight. the strikers were
a week from that time over 81 100000 worth
of property was destroyed at Chicago, the
trains of several of the roads named in the
injunction were interfered with, thousands
Of freight cars and their contents were
burned and & general reign of terror was
inaugurated 1t was then that Debs and
a few other leaders were arrested for con-
tempt of court in disobeying it's order.
Further evidence that the proceeding in
this case originated with the government
and was not at the instance of the Pullman
Company and the railroads is the state
ment of President Cleveland. In replying
to Governor Altgeld's protest against send
ing United States troops into Illinois, he
said:
Federal troops were sent to Chicago in
strict accordance with the laws and Con-
Stitution Of the United States, upon the de-
mand of the Postoffice Department that OBJ
struction of the mails should be removed
and upon the representations of the judicial
officers of the United States that process
Of the Federal Courts could not be exc
cuted through the ordinary means, and
upon abundant proof that conspiracies ex-
listed against commerce between the States.
Enough has been said to show that the
cases of the Debs injunction in the great
SLTlk6 VI 1852 anu the TSC0IlL lHJuHCllOflS lOT
the protection of certain coal mines had
nothing in common, either in the ante
cedent causes, the principles involved. the
accompanying circumstances or the parties
to the suit. In one case the United States
government was the plaintiff, acting
through it's legal representatives, and in
the ether certain coal mining corporations
hu rn6 Tn
one case the object was the prevention of
interference with government mails and
interstate commerce. and in the other 1t
was the protection of certain coal miners
1t is true that coal company, a railroad
company or any other corporation is en-
titled to the protection of the law in the
operation of it's properties, and a situation
might arise in which they would be entitled
to writ OF injunction forbidding strikers
from entering on their premises, or inter
fering with their employees, but to assert
that there is no difference in principle be-
tween the recent injunctions and that in
the Debs case Is apt to lead to a mis-
chievous confusion of ideas.
1t may be questioned whether an injunc-
ton ought to issue in any case where the
law already prohibits and provides a pun
ishment for the contemplated act, unless
an emergency exists which makes it i'm
practicable or unsafe to await the ordinary
process Of events. AS a rule it is time
enough to punish violation of law when
it is committed. and neither corporations
nor individuals should invoke unusual and
extraordinary processes when efficient ones
have already been provided by law. The
practice of corporations running into court
and asking for injunctions against tres
passes not yet committed. crying before
they are hurt, should be stopped.
DEGRADATION OF COMPETITION.
An announcement in the report of the re-
L,.Is+., sI,..ds Iis.I.t