United States v. Debs
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
| Citation | United States v. Debs, 64 F. 724 (N.D. Ill. 1894) |
| Decision Date | 14 December 1894 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. DEBS et al. UNION TRUST CO. v. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO. |
Edwin Walker and T. E. Milchrist, U.S. Dist. Atty., for the United states.
E. A Bancroft and John S. Miller, for receivers.
W. W Erwin, Clarence S. Darrow, and S. S. Gregory, for defendants.
These informations were filed July 17, 1894. The substance of the first is:
That on the 2d day of July, 1894, the United States of America filed with the clerk of this court an information or complaint charging, among other things, that the defendants, Eugene V Debs, George W. Howard, L. W. Rogers, Sylvester Keliher, the American Railway Union, and others, were engaged in a conspiracy unlawfully to interfere with and to prevent the transportation of the mails and interstate commerce over and upon the several railroads named in the complaint, and praying an injunction. That on that day, by order of the court, a writ of injunction was duly issued, whereby the defendants, and all persons combining and conspiring with them, and all persons whosoever, were commanded and enjoined 'to desist and refrain'--
(1) From in any way or manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of the business of any of the following named railroads: Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad; Baltimore & Ohio Railroad; Chicago & Alton Railroad; Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad; Chicago & Erie Railroad; Chicago & Grand Trunk Railway; Chicago & Northwestern Railway; Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad; Chicago Great Western Railway; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway; Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway; Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway; Illinois Central Railroad; Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway; Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway; Michigan Central Railroad; New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad; Pennsylvania Company; Wisconsin Central lines; Wabash Railroad; Union Stock-Yard & Transit Company,-- as common carriers of passengers and freight between or among any states of the United States;
(2) 'From in any way interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any mail trains, express trains, or other trains, whether freight or passenger, engaged in interstate commerce, or carrying passengers or freight between or among the states;
(3) From in any manner interfering with, hindering, or stopping any trains carrying the mail, and from in any manner interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any engines, cars, or rolling stock of any of said companies engaged in interstate commerce, or in connection with the carriage of passengers or freight between or among the states;
(4) From in any manner interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of the property of any of said railroads engaged in or for the purpose of, or in connection with, interstate commerce, or the carriage of the mails of the United States, or the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the states;
(5) From entering upon the grounds or premises of any of said railroads for the purpose of interfering with, hindering, obstructing, or stopping any of said mail trains, passenger or freight trains engaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the states, or for the purpose of interfering with, injuring, or destroying any of said property so engaged in or used in connection with interstate commerce, or the transportation of passengers or property between or among the states;
(6) From injuring or destroying any part of the tracks, roadbed, or road, or permanent structures of said railroads, and from injuring, destroying, or in any way interfering with any of the signals or switches of any of said railroads, and from displacing or extinguishing any of the signals of any of said railroads, and from spiking, locking, or in any manner fastening any of the switches of any of said railroads, and from uncoupling or in any way hampering or obstructing the control by any of said railroads of any of the cars, engines, or parts of trains of any of said railroads engaged in interstate commerce, or in the transportation of passengers or freight between or among the states, or engaged in carrying any of the mails of the United States; (7) From compelling or inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, persuasion, force or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads to refuse or fail to perform any of their duties as employees of any of said railroads in connection with the interstate business or commerce of said railroads, or the carriage of the United States mail by such railroads, or the transportation of passengers or property between or among the states;
(8) From compelling or inducing, or attempting to compel or induce, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, any of the employees of any of said railroads who are employed by such railroad and engaged in its service in the conduct of interstate business, or in the operation of any of its trains carrying the mail of the United States, or doing interstate business, or the transportation of passengers and freight between and among the states, to leave the service of such railroads;
(9) From preventing any persons whatever, by threats, intimidation, force, or violence, from entering the service of any of said railroads, and doing the work thereof, in the carrying of the mails of the United States, or the transportation of passengers and freight between or among the states;
(10) From doing any act whatever in furtherance of any conspiracy or combination to restrain either of said railroad companies or receivers in the free and unhindered control and handling of interstate commerce over the lines of said railroads, and of transportation of persons and freight between and among the states; and
(11) From ordering, directing, aiding, assisting, or abetting, in any manner whatever, any person or persons to commit any or either of the acts aforesaid.'
That the American Railway Union is a voluntary association, of which many thousand railway employees were at the time of the filing of the bill, and still are, members. That the defendant Eugene V. Debs is the president of the association; George W. Howard, its vice president; Sylvester Keliher, secretary and treasurer; L. W. Rogers, one of the directors; and all of the defendants were and are directors. That the avowed purpose of said union and its officers has been, and still is, to procure all of the employees of the railways within the United States to become members, and to concentrate the power and jurisdiction of the union and its members under one official control, with authority to order strikes, or a discontinuance of the service of such employees with any of the railway companies of the United States, at any time when the union, its board of directors or other officers, should elect so to do, with or without sufficient cause. That on the 26th or 27th day of June, last past, prior to the filing of the bill and the issuing of the writ of injunction, the union, or its board of directors or other officers, including the defendants, had directed and ordered all its members engaged in the service of the Illinois Central Railroad Company in the transportation of the mails, and of interstate commerce, and all other trains controlled and operated by that company, to strike or quit service. That thereafter, and before the writ of injunction was issued, similar orders were issued to the employees of other railway companies, named in the bill of complaint; and that, in pursuance to those orders, all employees who were members of the American Railway Union did in a body leave the service of said railway companies, for the avowed purpose of hindering, preventing, and delaying the operation of trains engaged in the transportation of the mails and interstate commerce. That the order of injunction was published in the daily papers of Chicago on the morning of July 3, 1894. That each of the defendants had knowledge that the order had been duly entered in said cause. That a copy was served upon the defendant Rogers on the 3d day of July, and upon the defendant Eugene V. Debs early on the morning of July 4th, and upon the defendants George W. Howard and Sylvester Keliher on the 4th day of July, 1894. That the American Railway Union, prior to the 2d day of July, had organized many local unions upon substantially all the railroads in the northwest, from Chicago to California, including substantially all the railroads to the Pacific coast, and at the same time was engaged in organizing local unions upon the main lines of road extending from Chicago to the Atlantic coast; and that the work of organization and extension was continued without change or interruption, after the service of the injunction, for the avowed purpose of conferring upon the union authority to order strikes upon all of the roads as rapidly as the local unions could be organized.
That the orders for strikes and for the railway employees to leave in a body the service of the railroads named in the bill of complaint, as well as other railroads, were generally communicated by telegram from the defendant Debs to the officers or committees of local unions at the most important railway centers and cities. That copies of some of such telegrams and orders, so issued by the defendant Debs, both before and after the service of said writ of injunction, are herein inserted, for the purpose of showing that the service of the injunction did not affect or change the policy or conduct of the defendants relative to said strikes, but that on the contrary, the defendants continued, notwithstanding the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
United States v. United Mine Workers of America Same v. Lewis, John United Mine Workers of America v. United States Lewis, John v. Same United Mine Workers of America v. Same
...reasons, the petitioners do not claim that the Constitution of the United States affords them a right to trial by jury. 3 United States v. Debs, C.C., 64 F. 724; In re Debs, 158 U.S. 564, 15 S.Ct. 900, 39 L.Ed. 1092; United States v. Hayes, Unreported, D.Ind.1919; United States v. Railway E......
-
Apex Hosiery Co v. Leader
...to prevent transportation might result in the paralysis of interstate commerce. Id., C.C., 62 F. at page 822. In the case of United States v. Debs, C.C., 64 F. 724, the United States brought suit to enjoin those engaged in a conspiracy to interfere with transportation upon several railroads......
-
Conn. Ironworkers Emp'rs Ass'n, Inc. v. New Eng. Reg'l Council of Carpenters, 16-485-cv
...769 & n.2 (1940) (discussing United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 F. 994 (E.D. La. 1893) ); see also United States v. Debs, 64 F. 724, 765 (N.D. Ill. 1894) (imposing an injunction under the Sherman Act against Eugene V. Debs, President of the American Railway Union, and oth......
-
Blanchard v. Golden Age Brewing Co.
...It remained for the courts of the United States to extend the jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief against the world. United States v. Debs (C.C.) 64 F. 724. This was quick development after the courts of this country seized upon the doctrine of the Springhead Case in 1888. Sherry v. Per......
-
An Antitrust Exemption for Workers: And Why Worker Bargaining Power Benefits Consumers, Too.
...86 See, e.g. , United States v. Workingmen’s Amalgamated Council of New Orleans, 54 F. 994 (C.C.E.D. La. 1893); United States v. Debs, 64 F. 724 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1894); Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908). For a review by one commentator, see Sandeep Vaheesan, Accommodating Capital and Polic......
-
All I Really Need to Know About Antitrust I Learned in 1912
...winning of the Nobel Peace prize in 1906 for brokering an end to the Russo–Japanese War the previous year. 7. See United States v. Debs, 64 F. 724, 763–66 (C.C.N.D. Ill. 1894). 8. See Letter from President Theodore Roosevelt to Arthur B. Farquhar (Aug. 11, 1911), in THEODORE ROOSEVELT: LETT......