District Attorney Milchrist argued that the court had perfect jurisdiction in these cases, he held that the government derived revenue from postal service and interstate commerce. It had suffered in a pecuniary way hence the bill of information filed had a proper place in court.
In regard to the information and answers, Mr. Milchrist said: "Either the counsel for the government deserved to be disbarred for willful misconduct for filing it, or the defendants in their sworn answer embodying a sweeping denial of the charge in the information had been guilty of rank perjury."
Attorney Erwin then proceeded, prefacing his remarks with the statement that this was a court of equity. When these defendants denied under oath before the court, the allegations made in the bill, equity shut its doors. There was a remedy at law. The men could be punished for perjury in swearing falsely in their answers. No court of equity could hear such a case. Mr. Erwin held that the information was filed in equity and that the answer filed by the defendants was final and the remedy then was at law in a charge of perjury.
"Is it any indication of the power of a court," interrupted Judge Wood, "to hold a man convicted on a charge of perjury?"
Attorney Erwin said that the perjury charge could purge the defendants in the case of contempt.
"You say in your answer," said Judge Wood, "that the defendants deny ordering strikes because it was not in their power to do so. Is it not enough to deny that you ordered the men out without going further and denying that you advised them in this matter."
"We say," answered Mr. Erwin "that every strike was voted on by a majority of the American Railway Union men upon each road upon which there had been a strike. The defendants deny the power to order or coerce the members of the American Railway Union."
When questioned as to the answers denying the telegrams Mr. Erwin said the denials were sweeping. They had covered every point and purged themselves of any desire to disregard the orders of the court and the proceedings should be dismissed. He said: "Had Special Counsel Walker who set before the grand jury made his charges more specific, and not sought to prejudice the minds of the court by holding his averments for the attachment proceedings, and making them in vague and declamatory charges."
Judge Wood said if the defendants had asked for more specific charges he thought the court would have granted it.
Attorney Erwin here remarked that they would prefer to make a motion to quash, which Judge Wood announced could not be done in this case unless the bill was wholly defective.