Opinion of the Court.

plainant, the United States, prays process against the parties above named, the bill would have been technically sufficient. Now, then, I assume that process of subpoena was issued against these men by order of Judge Woods, without their having been named in the prayer for process. It is a mere technical defect. It is one that does not, in the language of the supreme court, go to the jurisdiction of the court. The jurisdiction of the court depends upon the law of the land. Nor do I think it is necessary in this sort of cases for the government to file what is technically known as a "bill in equity" on the chancery side of this court as in a civil case. The right at all to file this sort of a proceeding is a new statutory right, and courts cannot-they would be derelict in the discharge of their duty if they did-disregard the purpose and object of the enactment of the law. I do not undertake to sit in judgment on either capitalists or laboring men. I have, as a magistrate, nothing to do with that. I am simply bound as a judge to take notice that a condition of things had grown up in this country of strikes, of interruption of mails, and interruption [827] and interferences with interstate commerce; that it provoked comment, and had created feeling; and, in order that labor troubles should be settled without interfering with the commerce and the happiness of millions of innocent people, it was determined that the national government should clothe its courts with power on the civil side to stop these things without waiting until crimes had been committed, and then send men to the penitentiary for the crimes so committed. That is the reason of it. It was intended to be a preventive remedy. That was the sole purpose of it. So far as this phase of it is concerned, it is true there are other sections that authorize men who do these things to be punished by fine of not more than $5,000, and imprisonment for a year in state prison; but, so far as the civil side of it is concerned, it was intended to meet an emergency and a public exigency. It could not sue until the mails had been interfered with, or until the commerce of the country had been lawlessly stopped, but it was not intended, in my judgment, in order to invoke the judgment and jurisdiction of the court that all

Opinion of the Court.

of the old nicety of pleading and practice of the English chancery courts should apply. The courts would be powerless if that were the case, to accomplish the beneficent purpose of the law, because it is a beneficent purpose. It is a praiseworthy purpose, in the midst of tumult and excitement, when lawlessness seizes upon the arteries of the commerce of the nation, for the courts of the land, in their peaceable and orderly way, to lay their hands on these men, and bid them cease. It is a lawful thing,-a commendable thing. The law gives them that power. So much, then, on the question of jurisdiction.

I think that in this proceeding the court (Judge Woods, as judge of the circuit court) had jurisdiction to issue this writ. Now, this party defendant is not named, and to say now that process of injunction may not be issued, to be binding upon men who are not named, or shall not be binding until they are actually served with subpoena, as they are on the civil side, on the equity side, of the court, it would defeat the purpose of the law. It is not within the language of the statute itself. I think the injunction as against unknown defendants is valid and binding when the injunction order is served upon them, although they are not at the time parties to the suit. Indeed, I think an injunction that is issued against one man enjoining or restraining him, and all that give aid and comfort to him, or all that aid and abet him, is valid against everybody that aids or gives countenance to the man to whom it is addressed. I do not entertain any doubt about that.

Now, then, the court having decided that it thinks the injunction was properly issued, and that, if it was actually served on this man as one of the unknown defendants, the injunction would be good, that brings us to the question of the technical sufficiency of the affidavit, because in this sort of proceeding, in my judgment, it is not essential that an information shall be filed, although there is no harm in doing that. The essential thing is the filing of a statement or charge that shall show clearly and distinctly that the [828] restraining order has been served on the defendant, or, if it has not been served on him, that he had notice or knowledge of its contents.

Opinion of the Court.

Now, in this case, the information, I think, lacks considerable of having the certainty and precision that is essential. It is not alleged that this man was one of the unknown parties that are referred to in the injunction. It is not alleged that the restraining order was a lawful one, in the language of the statute. It does not allege, and that is the most serious thing, to my mind, that either by his words or his acts he was engaged in aiding the common object with other members of the American Railway Union. If what this man did was not done to give aid or comfort or encouragement to the object of arresting the mails, if it was an independent crime the man was committing, if he wanted to commit arson or robbery, without having any connection with these men that were engaged in the interruption of commerce, then he would not be within the terms of the restraining order, nor within the law, which has been read here,— the law of July 2, 1890. Now, it is not charged, although it has been assumed all the way through,-I suppose the proof adduced would go to show that, that he was connected with the railway union, and that his acts were acts that were calculated in their nature to give aid and comfort to the strike that has been carried on. If those facts were proved, why they would be sufficient to satisfy the court that his mind was acting in combination with the minds of Debs and others, or that they were engaged in the common purpose, and hence that they were in the conspiracy that is mentioned in the statute, provided the things that they were trying to do would naturally result in delaying or interrupting the mails, or in delaying or interrupting the carriage of passengers and freight from one state to another. I think that in these particulars the affidavit is insufficient. I think the charge is sufficient, so far as showing that the court has jurisdiction to issue the writ, when it is showu by an affidavit that this man was engaged in the combination or conspiracy with other railroad men in aiding and assisting to arrest the mails and interstate commerce. I think the affidavit would show a cause of action against him, and then it would depend upon the proof whether or not the offense was made out.

[840]

Charge to the Grand Jury.

IN RE GRAND JURY."

(District Court, N. D. California. July 13, 1894.)

[62 Fed., 840.]

CONSPIRACY-OBSTRUCTION OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE.-Any combination or conspiracy on the part of any class of men who by violence and intimidation prevent the passage of railroad trains engaged in interstate commerce is in violation of Act July 2, 1890, declaring illegal every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce among the states.b MAIL-OBSTRUCTING PASSAGE.-It is a violation of Rev. St. § 995, declaring it an offense to knowingly and willfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, for one to prevent the running of a mail train as made up, though he is willing that the mail car shall go on, and his purpose is other than to retard the mails. SAME. The railway is a great public highway, and the duty of the railroad company as a common carrier is first to the public. The road must be kept in operation for the accommodation of the public, if it is possible to do so with the force and appliances within reach. Any negligence in this respect is not excused by temporary difficulties capable of being promptly removed. SAME. Where the transportation of the mails and interstate commerce has long been interrupted by the refusal of the employés of the railway company to move trains carrying Pullman cars, it is the duty of the railway company to use every effort to move the mails and interstate commerce, without regard to the make-up of regular trains; and any willful failure to perform this duty is a violation of the statute.

GRAND JURY-FINDING-INDICTMENT.-An indictment should only be found where the grand jury believe that the evidence before them would warrant a conviction.

Charge to the grand jury by MORROW, District Judge:

[841] Gentlemen of the Grand Jury: You have been summoned and sworn as grand jurors of the district court of the United States for the northern district of California. It now becomes my duty to instruct you concerning the duties you will be called upon to perform under the laws of the United States.

The extraordinary occurrences in this state during the past two weeks require your immediate attention, and call for a

a The charges to the Grand Jury found in 62 Fed., 828 and 834, do not relate to the anti-trust law and are therefore not reprinted. Syllabus copyrighted, 1894, by West Publishing Co.

Charge to the Grand Jury.

thorough and sweeping investigation. It is a matter of public notoriety that during this time a great railroad strike has prevailed; that the most important channels of trade and commerce carried by railway service have been closed, the business operations of the state paralyzed, and the passage of the mails seriously retarded and obstructed at several points in the state. The constitution of the United States provides that congress shall have power to regulate commerce among the states and establish post offices and post roads. Pursuant to the first of these provisions, congress has provided by the Act of July 2, 1890, that

"Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments in the discretion of the court."

"Trade" has been defined as "the exchange of commodities for other commodities or for money; the business of buying and selling; dealing by way of sale or exchange." The word "commerce," as used in the statute and under the terms of the constitution, has, however, a broader meaning than the word "trade." Commerce among the states consists of intercourse and traffic between their citizens, and includes the transportation of persons and property, and the navigation of public waters for that purpose, as well as the purchase, sale, and exchange of commodities. County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 702; Gloucester Ferry Co. v. Pennsylvania, 114 U. S. 203, 5 Sup. Ct. 826. The primary object of the statute was undoubtedly to prevent the destruction of legitimate and healthy competition in interstate commerce by individuals, corporations, and trusts, grasping, engrossing, and monopolizing the markets for commodities. U. S. v. Patterson, 55 Fed. 605. But its provisions are broad enough to reach a combination or conspiracy that would interrupt the transportation of such commodities from one state to another, and in this view the scope and purpose of the statute have been the subject of consideration in the courts, notably in the case of U. S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 Fed. 995. That action was brought by the