Page images
PDF
EPUB

HAMPTON L. CARSON.

Thereupon he directed a verdict of guilty, which was entered, and after a suitable admonition General Bright was sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of two hundred dollars, and the men to one month's imprisonment and a fine of fifty dollars each; but these were immediately remitted by the President on the ground that the defendants had acted under a mistaken sense of duty.(1)

The old fisherman had triumphed. His pertinacity in maintaining his legal rights had equalled his persistent valor when gashed and bleeding upon the sea, in securing his prize against superior numbers.. Heaven had bountifully lengthened out his days until the victory was won, and then called him away at the age of four-score and ten. But better and more lasting than the fruits of heroism was the vindication of national power. The priceless principle had been established that the Constitution and laws of the United States shall be recognized as the supreme law of the land, "and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

In striking confirmation of the doctrines finally established through this most remarkable litigation, and as a corollary to its principles, there was enacted upon the soil of Illinois in the year 1894, a drama in which the dramatis personae were the employes of twenty-two railroad companies, banded together, at the instance of the officers of the American Railway Union, to sustain a boycott of Pullman cars, on the one side, and the Judges of the Courts of the United States on the other. Industrial and commercial enterprises were par

(1) The sources of the foregoing account are the original papers in the case of the "Active" in the Clerk's office of the Supreme Court of the United States: Journals of Congress, Vol. V.; Ross et al., Exrs.. vs. Rittenhouse, 2 Dallas, 165; United States vs. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; "The Whole Proceeding in the Case of Olmsted vs. Rittenhouse," by Richard Peters Jr., published at Philadelphia in 1809; Trial of General Bright in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Pennsylvania, printed at Philadelphia in 1809, two scarce pamphlets in the Library of the Philadelphia Library Company.

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

alyzed; the food supplies of two continents were cut off; the mails of the United States and the business of the nation were obstructed; the wholesale destruction of millions of dollars worth of property was threatened, the lives and safety of citizens was imperilled, the freedom of locomotion. upon national highways was at an end. Factory, mill, mine and shop were silenced, and widespread demoralization had full sway. A cloud, black and portentous, hung over this city, and men in all the sister States viewed the outcome with unconcealed terror.

In

At the instance of the Attorney General of the United States there issued, upon the application of the District Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, from the Circuit Court of the United States for that district, a writ of injunction, commanding the defendants, and all persons combining and conspiring with them, to desist and refrain from in any manner interfering with interstate commerce, and the carrying of the mails, and when the process of the Court was treated with scorn, when the terms of the injunction were violated, the defendants were committed for contempt. an instant the war cloud vanished, the mobs dispersed, the wheels of commerce began to roll, the clutch upon the throat of enterprise was loosened, affrighted men breathed freely, and white lips returned to color, because in every corner of the land, there rang the words of the Supreme Court of the United States: "We hold it to be an incontrovertible principle that the government of the United States may, by means of physical force, exercised through its official agents, execute on every foot of American soil the power and functions that belong to it."

Truly since the days of the Sloop Active the gristle had hardened into bone.

No more graphic description of the effect produced by that writ of injunction can ever be given than in the words of Mr. Debs:

HAMPTON L. CARSON,

"As soon as the employes found that we were arrested, and taken from the scene of action, they became demoralized, and that ended the strike. It was not the soldiers that ended the strike. It was not the old brotherhoods that ended the strike.. It was simply the United States courts that ended the strike. Our men were in a position that never would have been shaken, under any circumstances, if we had been permitted to remain upon the field among them. Once we were taken from the scene of action, and restrained from sending telegrams or issuing orders or answering questions, then the minions of the corporations would be put to work. Our headquarters were temporarily demoralized

and abandoned, and we could not answer any messages. The men went back to work, and the ranks were broken, and the strike was broken up. .. not by the army, and not by any other power, but simply and solely by the action of the United States courts in restraining us from discharging our duties as officers and representatives of our employes."

My brethren of the Bar:

The establishment of the judicial system of the United States was the crowning marvel of the wonders wrought by the statesmanship of America. In truth the creation of the Supreme Court with its appellate powers was the greatest conception of the Constitution. It embodied the loftiest ideas of moral and legal power, and although its prototype existed in the Superior Courts established in the various States, yet the majestic proportions to which the structure was carried became sublime. No product of government, either here or elsewhere, has ever approached it in grandeur. Within its appropriate sphere it is absolute in authority. From its mandates there is no appeal. Its decree is law. In dignity and moral influence it outranks all other judicial tribunals of the world. No court of either ancient or modern times was ever invested with such high prerogatives. Its jurisdiction extends over Sovereign States as well as over

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

the humblest individual. It is armed with the right as well as the power to annul in effect the statutes of a State whenever they are directed against the civil rights, the contracts, the currency or the intercourse of the people. It restricts Congressional action to Constitutional bounds. Secure in the tenure of its Judges from the influences of politics, and the violence of prejudice and passion, it presents an example of judicial independence unattainable in any of the States and far beyond that of the highest Court in England. Yet its powers are limited and strictly defined. Its decrees are not arbitrary, tyrannical or capricious, but are governed by the most scrupulous regard for the sanctity of law. It cannot encroach upon the reserved rights of the States or abridge the sacred privileges of local self-government. Its power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge, but always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature, or, in other words, to the will of the law. Its administration is a practical expression of the workings of our system of liberty according to law. Its Judges are the sworn ministers of the Constitution, and are the High Priests of Justice. Acknowledging no superior, and responsible to their consciences alone, they owe allegiance to the Constitution and to their own exalted sense of duty. Instructed and upheld by a highly educated bar, their judg ments are the ripest fruits of judicial wisdom. Amenable to public opinion, they can be reached, in case of necessity, by impeachment by the Senate of the United States. No institution of purely human contrivance presents so many features calculated to inspire both veneration and awe.

The Court is the Conservator of the Peace of the Nation, and her voice is the Harmony of the Union.

JOHN S. STEVENS.

SPECIAL ADDRESS.

THE TRIAL AND CHARACTER OF AARON BURR.

JOHN S. STEVENS, OF PEORIA.

When, at the suggestion of a friend, I consented to occupy a short time with remarks upon the trial and character of Aaron Burr, I little realized how trite and commonplace must be any comments of mine to at least two classes of listeners. First, those who have made a study of the notable trials of the country, for the purpose of professional improvement, as well as obtaining information upon the law and mode of conducting such trials; and second, those, who, during the last two years, have devoted so much time, research and thought to the character, life and reputation of the eminent Chief Justice who presided at the trial of Burr. There may, however, be some for whom the subject will have attractions.

For nearly a century the public has been content to let the reputation of Burr rest where he left it. Only recently has there been any attempt to revive his memory and to treat of his character and conduct. Possibly the less said of such characters as Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold, the better, although when an attempt is being made to awaken an interest in them and to apologize for their errors, their misdeeds, their crimes, their defects of moral character, it is well enough, in the interest of the rising generation, to recall the history of their careers, for the purpose of impressing

« PreviousContinue »