The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-11-25
GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION.
An Elaborate Defense of the Plank in
the Chicago Platform.

sir.-In your issue of the 18th, I find an
editorial under the caption, The Law
and the Lady" The case, as stated by
you. IS briefly this. "A widow I'm Louis
lana. being a large property owner Is
seeking an Injunction against the texas
and Pacific Railroad Company 10 re-
strain the company from laying q track
over the property on which her property
IS located" For the sake OF argument
md 20 illustrate your point you presume
the widows complaints are Just that
the act of the railroad Is an unwarranted
act OF trespass, and TO lay the track as
proposed would be 10 destroy the Naiue
Of her property and that the tract once
laid the damage could not be repaired.
Tpon this hypothesis, you PROFOUND the
question. what shall the widow do2'
and answer a. In the following language
Shall she be made 10 wait until the
track has been laid and the damage
done. or shah she get q restraining or
der from the court until such a time as
the cause may be finally adjudicated
according a. the equities Of the case
demand? We say that the injunction Is
the only remedy that this defenceess
woman has against a powerful railroad
corporation, yet there are those who have
denounced so called government by in
Junction and would destroy this great
instrument OF q free people" Now, Mr..
Editor IL Is evident that this editorial
s. aimed az and intended to discredit
those who approve that plank In the
Chicago platform of 1895. declaring against
government 10y injunction" If your
argument in the above case is intended
TO represent that declaration Of TIE
Democratic party as aiming at a general
limlts ton and restriction Of the exercise
o. the writ OF Injunction by the Federal
Courts In accordance with time honored
rrecedents. n IS very misleading Let
us see what this oft misquoted and much
ubused plank does really say as follows.
90 wit: I'VE denounce arbitrary Interior
.nce By Federal authorities In local ar
fairs as n violation OF the constitution
Of the United States and crime against
free Institutions. and we especially OBJ
1ect 20 government by INJUNCTION as a
new and highly dangerous form OF OPP
preston. by which Federal 5udges, in
contempt OF the laws Of the States and
the rights ~ citizens. become at once
legislator. Judges and executioners. and
we approve the bin passed at the last
session or The United states Senate. and
now pendiug In tine House Of Represen-
tatiyes, relative 90 contempts IN Federal
Courts and providing for trials by jury
an certain cases Of contempt" This dec
laraiion hasn't the slightest analogy or
application 10 the case you cite. on the
contrary the object aimed at is alto
sether different It IS more far reaching
and involving az II does the relation Of
the States 20 me Federal Government
under the Constitutional Compact by
which II was created and also tie rights.
privileges and liberties OF the citizen
guaranteed by that Instrument this dec
laration Is IN perfect harmony with the
principles and tlme honored traditions
OF the Democratic party.
This case Of The Widow versus the Rail-
road is one pre-eminently proper for
injunction proceedings and - in accord
with such authority exercised by Courts
OF Equity from time immemorial. and
IL do not presume for a moment that any
sensible citizen would wish the Courts
deprived OF this jurisdiction. Every law