The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-08-12
JUDGE JAoKsoN's INJUNCTION.

Injunction Industry IS 10 DC impure" 49,
Pennsylvania. The blanket or OMNIBUS
Injunction against coal miners lateiy -
sued by the West Virginia courts have
hsen condemned by representatives OF
labor and capital alike. The miners ana
their oficials have protested against them
with not a bit more emphasis than the
organs OF moneyed interests. They arc
10 quote the New York Tribune, zeal
culated TO make law hateful To quote
the so-called organ Of Wall street the
New York Evening POST IF 1t IS lawful
for men 10 agree TO quit work, II can
hardly be criminal 20 advise or 1ncite'
them to do so; and the circumstances
must be very peculiar to make II an OF
fence to approach the property OF coal
company"
Since the Tribune published the article
quoted from by the Press, It has had an
other article upon the subject from which
we quote the following:
The text OF Judge Jackson's injunction
upon the coal strikers differs materially
in substance from the abstracts which
we're telegraphed at the time II was IS
sued. Those abstracts certainly JUSTIFIED
the complaint OF Debs that he was "or-
dored off the earth" and Indicated an
astonishing invasion OF the rights az tho
citizen which seemed more likely 20 pro-
mote resentment and consequent disorder
among she strikers than 10 induce them
10 keep the peace II IA difficult how
ever. 20 understand what they wan, 70
90 which the injunction as now reported
does not permit them 20 DO. provided, OF
course. that they want 10 maintain or
der and conduct their strike without in
vading the Constitutional rights Of The
frvz vnA Iii rrfr
We have not seen the text Of Judge
JAoksons Injunction. and we are unable.
therefore 20 express any opinion upon
the question Of whether Il is or is not
within the pale Of the law.
This. however IS 20 be said Of II and
Of any other order Of n court. that it is
10 be assumed to be warranted by the
law, and that no man IS 20 dsobey II un-
less he IS prepared 20 take upon his head
all the consequences Of a wilful defiance
OF the law.
Though we have not seen Judge Jack
sons order we are nevertheless entirely
prepared to say that, in the extract last
quoted. the Tribune has stated the true
principle applicable 10 tho case. II the
Injunction permits the strikers to do what
they please so long as they invade no
rights Of the operators or the working
miners that are protected by law, they
have no right TO complain.
II IS their duty, while pursuing their
own ideas OF what IS best for their own
f.a.I.
pursue their ideas Of what IS best for
their interests, and, II they interfere with
the latter when pursuing their own ideas
OF what IS best for their own interests
IT. IS the duty Of the officers Of the law to
interfere and prevent them from doing
what they propose TO do.
The place Of a courts Injunction in our
jurisprudence IS very imperfectly under
s,ood bv the great majority OF men, and
was wholly misunderstood or deliberate
" ignored by those who framed the plank
in the Chicago platform, which denouhces
government by Injunction"
When our Anglo Saxon ancestors were
little better than savages, the only RENE
dial process known TO their institutions
was a procedure to secure reparation for
an injury already inflicted In their free
dom and naughty pride Of individuality
they refused 10 tolerate the idea OF
free man being coerced into doing any
thing against his will.
They said he might trespass az he
pleased upon the rights Of another under
the penalty Of paying that other for the
damages that he inflicted. But even then
he was not 10 pay unless jury OF twelve
Of the neighbors said that under all the
facts and circumstances Of the case he
ought to pay. This left. Of course, very
wide field for the play Of human passions
and. while not greatly promotive Of an
advancing civilization, was strong in
centive TO that individuality at the bot
tom Of their fierce love for liberty.
But civilization advanced by degrees IN
| spite of this principle in our laws, and as
civilization advanced there was strong
demand for such a modification Of our
| institutions as would prevent injuries IN
| advance, while retaining so much OF the
| old theory as was necessary for mention
| ing the individuality of the citizen. There
upon. some four hundred years ago, the
| authorities Of the law amongst our Eng
| ush ancestors, began to consider the pro-
priety Of adopting the old Roman method
| OF restraining anticipated injuries by the
process OF injunctions. and after the whole
subject had been fully and sufficiently
considered, the discussion being prolonged
through many years. it was forcibly de-
termined that the old ideas should yield
| 10 this extent, to-wit: that whenever the
| injury threatened was Of such charac-
| ter that the verdict of a jury for dam
| ages would not afford adequate compen-
sation. then the party threatening the IN
ury would be enjoined and restrained in
advance. from committing it. That was
adopted as an amendment OF the old law
nearly four hundred years ago and 1t is
as firmly part Of the English law to-
day as it was when first adopted.
When our more immediate ancestors set
tied this continent they brought from Eng
land with them that principle as part OF
| their jurisprudence and they lived under II
until they framed the constitution Of the
United States and they thought the prin-
| cinle so irnportant TO civilization and pro-