Question: Resolved, That the injunction issued by the federal judges against the strikers was unjustifiable.

Brief for the Affirmative.

Fritz v. Briesen and J. W. Cooke.Best general references: N. Y. Tribune, July 3, 1894; Albany Law Journal, L. 140-151 (Sept. 1, 1894); Nation, Vol. 59, pp. 22-23 (July 12, 1894); pp. 190-191 (Sept. 13, 1894).

I. The injunction was illegal. (a) Transcends the fundamental purpose of injunctions: Abbott's Law Dict., I, 611. (1) It was primarily issued to protect public rights: Alb. Law J., L, 147. (2) "It is necessary to the obtaining an injunction that there should be no plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law:" Bouvier's Law Dictionary, I, 711, Section 5. (b) Infringes upon the rights of citizens: Nation, Sept. 13, 1894, p. 190. (c) Is without precedent: Pub. Opinion, Apr. 19, 1894, pp. 67-68. (d) Writ could not be served personally: Alb. Law J., Sept 1, 1894, p. 147.

II. The injunction was unnecessary. (a) There were adequate remedies at law. (1) Enforcement of Interstate Commerce Law and of Mail Regulations by act of 1891: Nation, July 12, 1894, p. 22. (2) Enforcement of law of 1874: Rev. Stat., S S 5298, 5299; Nation, July 12, 1894, p. 22. (b) Federal troops would in any case have had to be employed: Nation, Sept. 13, 1894, p. 191.

III. The injunction worked positive evil. (a) Established dangerous precedent. (b) Tended to excite disorder. (1) Weakened the confidence of the workingmen in the integrity of the courts: Nation, Sept. 13, 1894, p. 191. (2) Summary proceeding enraged the working classes.

Brief for the Negative.

M. A. Aldrich and W. D. Brookings.Best general references: N. Y. Tribune, June 22 to July 13, 1894; T. M. Cooley in Forum, XVIII, 5-13 (Sept. 1894); H. J. Fletcher in Atlantic, LXXIV, 534-541 (Oct. 1894); Injunctions in N. Y. Tribune, July 3, 1894; Interstate Commerce Act, Feb. 4, 1887; Judge Grosscup's charge in N. Y. Tribune, July 11, 1894.

I. The injunctions are legal. (a) They are upheld by the Federal executive. (b) They are law unless set aside by a superior court.

II. The injunctions were just to the strikers. (a) The Federal courts have no bias against either laborers or railroads: Decision of Judge Caldwell in Atlantic, Oct. 1894, p. 435. (b) The injunctions simply gave the strikers fair warning of what the law expected; Deb's admission in N. Y. Tribune, July 4, 1894.

III. The injunctions were just in protecting the railroads. (a) The government compels the railroads to run regularly for the public good: Interstate. Commerce Act, S S 1, 2, 3, 5; N. Y. Tribune, July 4, 1894; Atlantic, Oct. 1894, p. 538. (b) The strikers were injuring the railroads: Forum, Sept. 1894, p. 6. (c) The injunctions were the only peaceful means by which the government could speedily lend help.

IV. The injunctions were just to the general public. (a) The best means for the government to protect the public must be (1) swift; the strike was doing irreparable damage to innocent people: Forum, Sept. 1894, pp. 5-13. (2) If possible, peaceable. (b) The injunctions were the only means both swift and peaceable. (c) The increasing magnitude of railroad strikes demanded a vigorous legal precedent which should check violence and protect the public: Forum, Sept. 1894, pp. 5-13.