Your answer to my protest involves some startling conclusions, and ignores and evades the question at issue—that is, that the principle of local self-government is just as fundamental in our institutions as is that of Federal supremacy7. You calmly assume that the Executive has the legal right to order Federal troops into any community of the United States in the first instance, whenever there is the slightest disturbance8, and that he can do this without any regard to the question as to whether the community is able to and ready to enforce the law itself.
After a rather dreary9 discussion of the importance of preserving the rights of the States and a presentation of the dangers to constitutional 113 government that lurked10 in the course that had been pursued by the general Government, this communication closed as follows:
Inasmuch as the Federal troops can do nothing but what the State troops can do there, and believing that the State is amply able to take care of the situation and to enforce the law, and believing that the ordering out of the Federal troops was unwarranted, I again ask their withdrawal11.
I confess that my patience was somewhat strained when I quickly sent the following despatch12 in reply to this communication:
Executive Mansion13.
Washington, D. C., July 6, 1894.
While I am still persuaded that I have neither transcended14 my authority nor duty in the emergency that confronts us, it seems to me that in this hour of danger and public distress15, discussion may well give way to active efforts on the part of all in authority to restore obedience16 to law and to protect life and property.
Grover Cleveland.
Hon. John P. Altgeld,
Governor of Illinois.
This closed a discussion which in its net results demonstrated how far one’s disposition17 and inclination18 will lead him astray in the field of argument.
I shall conclude the treatment of my subject 114 by a brief reference to the legal proceedings19 which grew out of this disturbance, and finally led to an adjudication by the highest court in our land, establishing in an absolutely authoritative20 manner and for all time the power of the national Government to protect itself in the exercise of its functions.
It will be recalled that in the course of our narrative21 we left Mr. Debs, the president of the Railway union, and his three associates in custody22 of the law, on the seventeenth day of July, awaiting an investigation23 of the charge of contempt of court made against them, based upon their disobedience of the writs24 of injunction forbidding them to do certain things in aid or encouragement of interference with mail transportation or interstate commerce.
This investigation was so long delayed that the decision of the Circuit Court before which the proceedings were pending26 was not rendered until the fourteenth day of December, 1894. On that date the court delivered an able and carefully considered decision finding Debs and his associates guilty of contempt of court, basing its decision upon the provisions of the law of Congress, passed in 1890, entitled: “An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraint and monopolies”; sometimes called 115 the Sherman Anti-Trust Law. Thereupon the parties were sentenced on said conviction to confinement28 in the county jail for terms varying from three to six months.
Afterward29, and on the 14th day of January, 1895, the prisoners applied30 to the Supreme31 Court of the United States for a writ25 of habeas corpus to relieve them from imprisonment32, on the ground that the facts found against them by the Circuit Court did not constitute disobedience of the writs of injunction and that their commitment in the manner and for the reasons alleged33 was without justification34 and not within the constitutional power and jurisdiction35 of that tribunal.
On this application, the case was elaborately argued before the Supreme Court in March, 1895; and on the twenty-seventh day of May, 1895, the court rendered its decision, upholding on the broadest grounds the proceedings of the Circuit Court and confirming its adjudication and the commitment to jail of the petitioners36 thereupon.
Justice Brewer37, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court, stated the case as follows:
The United States, finding that the interstate transportation of persons and property, as well as 116 the carriage of mails, is forcibly obstructed38, and that a combination and conspiracy39 exists to subject the control of such transportation to the will of the conspirators40, applied to one of their courts sitting as a court of equity41, for an injunction to restrain such obstructions42 and prevent carrying into effect such conspiracy. Two questions of importance are presented: First, are the relations of the general Government to interstate commerce and the transportation of the mails such as to authorize44 a direct interference to prevent a forcible obstruction43 thereof? Second, if authority exists,—as authority in governmental affairs implies both power and duty,—has a court of equity jurisdiction to issue an injunction in aid of the performance of such duty?
Both of these questions were answered by the court in the affirmative; and in the opinion read by the learned justice, the inherent power of the Government to execute the powers and functions belonging to it by means of physical force through its official agents, and on every foot of American soil, was amply vindicated45 by a process of reasoning simple, logical, unhampered by fanciful distinctions, and absolutely conclusive46; and the Government’s peaceful resort to the court, the injunction issued in its aid, and all the proceedings thereon, including the imprisonment of Debs and his associates, were fully27 approved.
Thus the Supreme Court of the United States 117 has written the closing words of this history, tragical47 in many of its details, and in every line provoking sober reflection. As we gratefully turn its concluding page, those who were most nearly related by executive responsibility to the troublous days whose story is told may well especially congratulate themselves on the part which fell to them in marking out the way and clearing the path, now unchangeably established, which shall hereafter guide our nation safely and surely in the exercise of the important functions which represent the people’s trust.
点击收听单词发音
1 unwilling | |
adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 renewal | |
adj.(契约)延期,续订,更新,复活,重来 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 severely | |
adv.严格地;严厉地;非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 insistent | |
adj.迫切的,坚持的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 predecessor | |
n.前辈,前任 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 tenor | |
n.男高音(歌手),次中音(乐器),要旨,大意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 disturbance | |
n.动乱,骚动;打扰,干扰;(身心)失调 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 dreary | |
adj.令人沮丧的,沉闷的,单调乏味的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 lurked | |
vi.潜伏,埋伏(lurk的过去式与过去分词形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 withdrawal | |
n.取回,提款;撤退,撤军;收回,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 despatch | |
n./v.(dispatch)派遣;发送;n.急件;新闻报道 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 mansion | |
n.大厦,大楼;宅第 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 transcended | |
超出或超越(经验、信念、描写能力等)的范围( transcend的过去式和过去分词 ); 优于或胜过… | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 distress | |
n.苦恼,痛苦,不舒适;不幸;vt.使悲痛 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 inclination | |
n.倾斜;点头;弯腰;斜坡;倾度;倾向;爱好 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 proceedings | |
n.进程,过程,议程;诉讼(程序);公报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 authoritative | |
adj.有权威的,可相信的;命令式的;官方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 narrative | |
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 investigation | |
n.调查,调查研究 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 writs | |
n.书面命令,令状( writ的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 writ | |
n.命令状,书面命令 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 pending | |
prep.直到,等待…期间;adj.待定的;迫近的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 confinement | |
n.幽禁,拘留,监禁;分娩;限制,局限 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 afterward | |
adv.后来;以后 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 imprisonment | |
n.关押,监禁,坐牢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 justification | |
n.正当的理由;辩解的理由 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 jurisdiction | |
n.司法权,审判权,管辖权,控制权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 petitioners | |
n.请求人,请愿人( petitioner的名词复数 );离婚案原告 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 brewer | |
n. 啤酒制造者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 obstructed | |
阻塞( obstruct的过去式和过去分词 ); 堵塞; 阻碍; 阻止 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 conspiracy | |
n.阴谋,密谋,共谋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 conspirators | |
n.共谋者,阴谋家( conspirator的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 equity | |
n.公正,公平,(无固定利息的)股票 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 obstructions | |
n.障碍物( obstruction的名词复数 );阻碍物;阻碍;阻挠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 obstruction | |
n.阻塞,堵塞;障碍物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 authorize | |
v.授权,委任;批准,认可 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 vindicated | |
v.澄清(某人/某事物)受到的责难或嫌疑( vindicate的过去式和过去分词 );表明或证明(所争辩的事物)属实、正当、有效等;维护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 conclusive | |
adj.最后的,结论的;确凿的,消除怀疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 tragical | |
adj. 悲剧的, 悲剧性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |