Important Issues

Chicago, Sepu 6. - Of grave moment in tbe opinión of many will be tbe final outcome of the proceedíng begun before Judge Woods, of the United States court, when President E. V. Debs and his fellow officials of the American Railway Union appeared to answer wby they should not be punished for contempt in having violated an injunctioti issued out of the federal courts. Involved in the issue of the case are the scope and jurisdiction oi federal judges in niatters of importance in which the cours have receutly established a new method of procedure, lts fiual adjudication will determine how far the federal courts may go in the use of the injunction and power to punish for contempt. Will Go to the Snpreme Court. To a degree the right of trial by jury in certain criminal cases will be settled by the decisión of the court of last resort. As the leaders of organized labor believe, the liberty of the citizen and the federal guarantee that he shall not be deprived of his f reedom without due procesa of law are inextricably involved in the apparently simple question of whether Debs an i his associates are guilty of coutempt of court. Should Judge Woods decide against the defendants in the case on hearing therc is no doubt but it will be carried to the supreme court of the United States and every point in tbe controversy will be fought to the bitter end by able counsel. Debs, his associates and legal advisers contend that the judicial methods employed during the late labor troubles are illegal and unconstitutional. Claim of the !-■ fenriants. It is held tbat for a judge to issue ao injunction restraining person from committing crinifi for whioh the statutes provide penalties, and tben, in tbe event that the offeuse be committed, to eurumon the offeiider before him ud send him to jail for contempt of the injunction, is a sub version of tbe law. As well, tbey asrert, might a court send out sn injuuction against burglary, and then, the burglary having been committed and the culprit caught, the judge should send him to jai] for contempt instead of trying him before a jury for the crime of burglary. Purpose of the Inter-State Law. The adoption of this doctrine would, it is claimed, do away with the jury trials altogether and vest all power in the court. It is further contended that the use of the injunctional methods under the power supposed to be conferred on tbe courts by the interstate commerce law is a perversión of the statute. The interstate commerce act is not a riot gun act to quell disorderly mobs, but an efïort by the government to bring railroad Corporation? doing interstate commerce within the juriediction of the law. To this the government replies that the laoguage of the interstate law covers the case and that is all that is necessary.