per in the country discussed it as that; every labor
organization so considered it.

Congress passed it and the President signed it, and then an indictment
was found against a corporation, and it went to the Supreme Court of
the United States for the Supreme Court to say what the law meant. Of
course Congress can't pass a law that you and I can understand.
(Laughter). They may use words that are only found in the primer, but
we don't know what they mean. Nobody but the Supreme Court can tell
what they mean.

Everybody supposed this law was plain and simple and easily
understood, but when they indicted a combination of capital for a
conspiracy in restraint of trade, the Supreme Court said this law did
not apply to them at all; that it was never meant to fit that
particular case. So they tried another one, and they indicted another
combination engaged in the business of cornering markets, engaged in
the business of trade, rich people, good people. It means the same
thing. (Laughter). And the Supreme Court decided that this law did not
fit their case, and every one began to wonder what the law did mean
anyhow. And after awhile there came along the strike of a body of
laboring men, the American Railway Union. They didn't have a dollar in
the world altogether, because they were laboring men and they were not
engaged in trade; they were working; but they hadn't found anything
else that the Sherman anti-trust act applied to, so they indicted Debs
and his followers for a conspiracy in restraint of trade; and they
carried this case to the Supreme Court. I was one of the attorneys who
carried it to the Supreme Court. Most lawyers only tell you about the
cases they win. I can tell you about some I lose. (Applause). A lawyer
who wins all his cases does not have many. (Laughter).

Debs was indicted for a conspiracy in restraint of trade. It is not
quite fair to say that I lost that case, because he was indicted and
fearing he might get out on the indictment the judge issued an
injunction against him. (Laughter). The facts were the same as if a
man were suspected of killing somebody and a judge would issue an
injunction against him for shooting his neighbor and he would kill his
neighbor with a pistol shot and then they would send him to jail for
injuring his clothes for violating an injunction. (Laughter). Well,
they indicted him and they issued an injunction against him for the
same thing. Of course, we tried the indictment befo