The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-09-05
AS TO THE WRIT OF INJUNCTION.

1
We nre surprised that such intelligent
men as those who conduct The Houston
| Post should attempt 10 i1dIctile the writ
| of Injunction by cartooulng II and thereby
| pander to the blatant dnmagogy of such
men rs Dcbs and Ratchford. The Post
| certainly knows that the writ of injunc-
| ton il so interviewer with our Jurispru-
dence that its abolition would impair the
| efficiency of tho whole fabric II may be
unpopular with laboring men to attempt
| to maintain wel-settled legal remedies at
| present while they are falsely informed
| that this specific remedy is prejuaicial to
| excitement If soothod by obtaining juatice
from the mine owners they will see their
error and condemn those who led them
into IT, The Post Ia too broad TO pander
10 such temporary prejudice, and II has
too much influence TO exercise II against
the basic laws of the land.--Auslin States
man.
The trouble with tho Statesman appears
to be that It has incorrectly read and has
tlly msnterpreted The Posts position on
tho question Mt issue. as 1t has been fully
outlined In these columns. To be criticized
or abused Is always bad enough. but to be
placed in false light, whether through
Ignorance or otherwise. demonds at least
passing reply.
Of Vision or species OF petty prejudice,
when It assumes that The Post Is ignorant
or vicious enough 10 attack Tho principle
of Injunction, as a whole. In court pro-
ceedings.
Tho writ In often one OF the most proper
steps In a legal proceeding.
Wherever there Is a question at Issue be-
tween parties liIgant and one is seeking
TO do the other some grievous wrong the
writ becomes, indeed, a necessity. The
right application of the injunction is right.
1t is powerful arm Of the courts, either
for good or bad, and 1t is the arbitrary
and unlawful stretch OF the authority thus
conferred upon judges, against which The
Post has nveighed
Possibly the Statesman may remember
that Senator David b. Hill in the last
Introduced bill curtailng the
power of the Federal judges in the exercise
OF the writ and that his measure passed
the senate by an almost unanimous vote
republicans and democrats alike support
ing It, 1t was the purpose OF Senator Hill
w iltpIlNt iut NouiAS Va lut llBul 10 cn-
Join" parties not before them and then
on ex pnrte Testimony imprison such par
ties without the semblance of trial, In the
case OF the striking miners there was no
such legal unity among them as could
make them parties defendant in suit
diyidually in tho proceedings And yet
these mon generally were deprived OF the
right of assemblage aud free speech ard
We're threatened with Imprisonment at the
sweet Will OF deputy marshals and deputy
sheriffs.
Again but recently this writ Of injunc-
ton has been used to stop the govern
mental machinery of three sovereign
States, before tho higher courts OF the land
had passed upon the constItutionality OF
the acts complained OF. Does our esteemed
contemporary approve OF such exercises OF
tho writ as these?
IL sueh arbitrary power exists In the
hands of Federal judges is 1t not time to
curb 1t?
The tendency of such use OF the writ Is
to allow some future Judge, who imagined
tho Statesman was teaching false doctrine,
to close up that shop arbitrarily. and while
such q proceeding might excite no violent
popular protest, yet II would corta!niy 30
obnoxious to tho intelligent men who
conduct that paper.
Tho Post is not opposed to tho writ OF
Injunction and would not have It eliminat-
ed from court proceedings generally. but
1t does oppose Its use as a governmental
function, or for the purpose OF striking
down the liberty OF the citizen. or for the
Capitalization OF government into the
hands OF Federal judges.