"SECTION 8. The word person or persons wherever used shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under, or authorized by, the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state or the laws of any foreign country." "This law was never intended to cover the case of these defendants," said Mr. Greeting. "It is clearly directed at the trusts and combinations which conspire to rob such people as the defendants. It seems to me that the district attorney would have been acting more within the spirit of the law if he had charged the railroads and the Pullman Palace Car Co., with conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce, as it is a well known fact that the railroads have contracted with Pullman to haul none but his cars." A sickly smile spread over the features of the railroad attorneys present. It was evident that the words of Mr. Greeting sunk deeper than some of them would care to acknowledge. 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."