The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-18
TUESDAY. JANUARY Is, 1895.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The January number Of the Virginia
Law Register contains an article upon
government by Injunction by Mr.. ).
S J.. Patteson. OF the Richmond virginia
bar. i'm which the writer undertakes T.
maintain the proposition that courts OF
equity are not authorized by the settled
principles Of our institutions to cnjoin acts
that amount to crimes.
Prosecution Of the offenders, or suits
for damages. he thinks. are the only
measures contemplated by our institutions
in such cases. so that the accused may
ALWAYS have the benefit of a trial 10y jury
when what no is charged with amounts
10 a crime.
Mr. Patteson does not deal with the
plank in the Chicago platform which de-
uounccs government by injunction in
express words, but the entire logic Of his
article is support for that plank and con-
demnation Of injunctions by courts Of
equity where the acts complained of con-
stitute a breach Of the criminal laws. We
have known many editors 10 undertake
to maintain this proposition and we have
heard some lawyers when discussing The
matter I'm loose way do the same. But
this is tho first instance tina, has come TO
our knowledge in which "a lawyer has un-
dertaken in his character of lawyer TO
dot.
Mr.. Pattcson's whose case SIS founded
upon what occurred i'm England a few
years back in the cases OF SpraiGhoad
Spinning co. vs.. Riby, o.. l.. Eq. SOD,
and Prudential Assurance Co. Us. Knott
a.. r. 10 On 1l9. In the first case the
Vice Chancellor announced doctrines in
this connection that were rcpodiatod by
the Lords Justices in the second named
case. But when all IS said about these
two cases they amount TO no more than
that the Lords Justices thought a court OF
equity ought not 10 cnoin the publication
of a libel. The essence OF the matter is
that the Lords Justices thought a libel
could not inhict an irreparable injury and
that the verdict OF a jury would there
fore AFFORD ample compensation.
To get at a true understanding and
view Of this matter we must go into the
history and nature OF the case.
According 10 the original principles OF
our Anglo-saxon institutions a citizen
was not to be onioned from doing any
thing whatever that ne desired TO do Our
ancestors thought that the most important
of all matters was the fostering Of spir-
IL Of independence and freedom amongst
the people and that prohibitions and re-
straints upon them were inconsistent
with that free spirit that they priced
above all else. ln this theory Of lite'
therefore. the citizen was TO be at liberty
20 do whatever he pleased. upon the con-
dition however. that he answered before
q Jury for his acts II they were wrongful
That idea did well enough when we had
no trade and commerce, foreign or domes-
tic. and when the chief business OF lie
Vas fighting. But as our civilization
grow e. became manifest that VIC could
never make much progress II was TO
be allowed 10 pull down what Il had built
I'D as soon as II was completed. There
fore the pressure became strong that we
should modify our institutions 50 as to
take in the Roman process Of injunctions
where the case was a proper one Tor IN
junction. A great controversy grew up
thereupon between the Kings Chancellor
and the common law Judges Of the Kings
Courts. The Chancellor insisted that peo-
Pic who proposed to do other people
great injury should be prevented from
dolng Il at the outset. while the common
law Judges insisted that the old barbarian
rule should be perpetuated. The contro-
versv reached SIS acme IN the reign or
Queen Elizabeth. when the Lord Chancel-
Tor. Ellesmen. tenaciously chung TO hls
right TO grant injuncuons which the Lord
chief Justice of the Court Of Queens
Bench. Sir Edward Coke, denied. The
Lord Chancellor prevailed IN The end and
II soon became a settled graft upon our
jurisprudence that when the threatened
injury was OF such q character that the
verdict OF jury would not give adequate