Kansas City daily journal., 1896-10-19
as before stated. clear legal

mandamus, as before stated. a clear legal
right must be shown.
Now an injunction may issue to prevent
employees from striking, as mere meas
ure of public safety, leaving the questions
at issue undetermined. But before the
roads could compel the striking employees
to go to work again, they must, under the
forms of legal procedure governing these
remedies, show clear legal right: that is,
the roads would be compelled to join issue
with the strikers. and in proceedings an
alogous to trial sustain by evidence-and
they would have the burden OF proof-a
right to invoke the remedy by mandamus.
The course of the law in granting relief Is
often slow and tedious: but in affording
preventive, or provisional relief. or neutral
relief, 1t can act promptly and summartly.
Thus, in case Of threatened strike which
might occasion irreparable injury to the
railways. and great danger to the public,
the court can. upon due cause shown,
quickly exert its power to stay threatened
wrong, conserve the rights Of all parties.
and reserve the cause for future and de-
liberate action, without impairing the
rights of either party. For any injury oc-
casioned to railways or to the public on
account of a general strike, the courts
would be powerless to afford any relief as
against the strikers. Hence, 1t simply re-
strains both parties until their cause can
be judicially determined. But in case of
a mandamus to compel a road to operate
its trains. to erect a depot. the applicant
could suffer no wrong by the delay In is
suing the writ, after a hearing upon the
merits, but what the courts could afford
relief for by an action for damages. In a
case where there was dispute between a
water company and the consumers as to
the water rates, the company shut on the
water on refusal of the consumer to pay its
charges. The consumer sought by man
damus to compel the company to turn on
the water again.
But the court held that, in the absence
of a trial to determine the amount Of water
rates, the consumer could not show clear
legal right to a peremptory writ OF man
damus commanding the company to turn
on the water The court intimated. how
ever, that If the consumer had procured
an injunction preventing the company from
shutting off the water, he might not have
been deprived Of water-So essential In do
mestic economy-pendiug the determination
of the question as to the tariffs, and that
the rights Of either party would then have
been conserved-upon furnishing security
for payment for water to be consumed
and the issues left in statu quo.
1t seems inconceivable that q party which
stakes it's whole claim to be entrusted with
the administration Of the national govern
ment upon its ability to change all COM
| mercial values, whose strongest bid for
popular support is its promise to relieve
debtors of half of their obligations by de-
preciating the currency, that a party which
demands legislation that would prevent a
creditor from surrounding his contract with
reasonable degree of protection, should
declare against the so-called government
by injunction-the exercise Of the judicial
arm of the government-to prevent general
and arbitrary railway strikes which would
work irreparable injury to the railways,
| and expose the public to grave dangers, by
crippling dangerous species of public
service. GEORGE A. BENHAAl.