Evening star., 1894-01-30
NO RIGHT TO ASK
Judge Cox Denies the Injunction
Prayed for by the Knights.
THE REASONS FOR HIS RULING
The Petitioners Did Not Make Out
a Special Grievance.
NOT A MATTER FOR COURTS

Judge Cox this morning denied the injunc-
| ton prayed for yesterday by the Knights Of
Labor to restrain the Secretary of the
Treasury from issuing the $5O.O000O0 of
bonds proposed by him. and, of course, re-
| fused to grant the rule against the Secre-
| tary to show cause why the injunction
should not be granted. There were not
| more than a dozen spectators in the court
| at the time the decision was rendered, as 1t
| was not expected SO early. Representative
Pence of Colorado was present. as were
| Messrs Mills and Ralston Of counsel for
| the complainants.
Judge Cox delivered an oral opinion, ex-
planning that he had carefully examined the
| bill and fully considered the arguments of
| counsel for the complainants. and. after
stating the nature and object Of the hill.
| said that the first question suggested was
| what standing the complainants had in
| court? On general principles. he said. IT
was known that no citizen tax payer had
the right to enjoin the action Of an officer
| of the government unless property rights
| were about to be endangered or some other
| wrong consummated. Hence. the first
claim Of the complainants was that they
| ton.
But, asked Judge Cox. did the bill present
| such case? The bill. he explained. set out
that the issuance Of the bonds would create a
| pro rata tax Of 81. and that there being
| 300 600 members of the Knights Of Labor, a
total tax of 100000 would have to be paid
| by them. That, however, remarked the
court. would happen only in case Of poll or
per capita tax. There had been but two
direct taxes in the history Of the country.
but none since 1861, and there would prob
ably never be a per capita tax. Hence. the
, fear of the complainants on that score was
groundless. So. as taxpayers, it seemed to
him that they had no standing in court.
Their Interest In Mines.
The next contention of the complainants
was that they were miners, explained the
court, and that they would particularly suf-
fer by the issuance of the proposed bonds,
in that they would be unjustly discrimi-
mated against by the use of gold, called for
by the bonds. But did that, asked Judge
Cox entitle them to the relief prayed for.
or entitle them to interfere?
That none of such parties had such right
was. said Judge Cox, clearly evident: for,
If they had, operatives in the mills of the
country could come into court and say that
certain tariff regulations injurious to them
should not be enforced.
The question of whether the United States
should pay their bonds In gold or in silver
was matter OF public policy. with which
the courts, under the present laws had
nothing to do, being a matter clearly within
the discretion OF the Secretary OF the Treas
ury; and, II being optional with the Secre-
tary to pay them in either metal. no ground
upon which he could be restrained from
paying them in gold had been shown, nor
could it be so shown.
Errors of LAW.
Judge Cox explained that he might well
stop right there having as he understood
it, discovered that the parties had no stand
ing in court. and that the Secretary Of the
Treasury had. in deciding to make the pro-
posed issue of bonds payable in gold exer-
cised that option which he was lawfully
authorized to exercise. But the court
stated that the bill filed by the complain
ants contained some errors of law, which
it would not be amiss for him to point out.
Judge Cox then went on to say that the
right of the Secretary of the Treasury to
redeem outstanding notes was not confined
to the excess of the $5U.WO.OOO, and that
when notes were presented for redemption
there was authority for continuing them
The real grievance, remarked Judge Cox.
seemed to him to be not the issuance of
the bonds. but their payment in gold, and
he imagined that II the Secretary of the
Treasury had stated that they should be
paid in silver the injunction would never
have been asked for, although he did not.
OF course. profess to know definitely as to
that.
Their Lawful Option.
The complainants had contended that the
bonds of the United States could be paid in
either gold or silver, but Judge Cox remark
ed that Congress had merely decided that
the use of the metal was optional with the
government, and their payment in silver
might have been all very well in 1873, when
there was a parity between gold and silver
but since then. explained Judge Cox, there
has been a great revolution in such values
and the President and Secretary of the
Treasury were of the opinion, it seemed,
that to pay the bonds in silver would not
be best. They having exercised their law
full option in the matter. the courts could
not interfere; for it seemed clear to the
court that the power of the United States
to issue bonds was the power to issue bonds
payable in gold. The Secretary of the
Treasury was the one to say whether such
a step was necessary. remarked Judge Cox,
and II was not for the courts to say other
wise.
In conclusion Judge Cox said that the bill
filed by the oompl linants only asked for
an Injunction against the issuance and sale
OF the bonds, and not against their pay
ment In silver, but, inasmuch as the tom-
plainants failed to show a legal interest
or right in the premises, the Injunction
would have TO be denied.
An Appeal to BE Made.
Mr.. ]. H. Ralston of counsel for the
complainants explained that he would pre-
pare an order embodying the courts ruling
preparatory TO asking the Court of Appeals
to allow them an appeal, and stated that
he would present 1t for the courts sigma
ture tomorrow.
Yesterday afternoon the complaiaants cb-
tanned a subpoena addressed TO the mar
shal of the District directing him to serve
the same upon the Secretary Of he Treas
ury, citing him to appear before the Su-
preme Court and make answer to the bill
asking for an Injunction that was fled
there today. The service of this process.
1t Is said, is necessary in order to properly
acquire jurisdiction of the case ana Is also
necessary as ir gives notice to all intend
ing purchasers of the bonds of the existence
of this suit, and II purchased by them they
cannot, in case the bonds are declared to
be illegally issued. claim to be innocent
purchasers.
Mr.. Carlisle Is required to put in an ap-
pearance in the case on the first Tuesday
fore the first Tuesday in April Indepen-
dent of Judge Cox's action today pro-
ceedings under this subpoena will 20
forward, and an appeal will eventually be
taken to the Supreme Court Of the United
States. IL possible.
Bonds Will Issue.
The Court of Appeals to which tribunal
the appeal will first be taken, will not meet
until Monday next, and hence the issue of
the bonds on the 1st Of February canno, ha