The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-07-17

| but little understood, Is OF the last Inn
portanoe. and we hope 10 be able to con-
tribute towards spreading correct infor-
1 nation in regard TO IL.
The Dispatch sets out BIZ assuming that
| The Times said Judge Atkins views were
not popular in tho South and particular
| Iy in Richmond. But The Times said
| nothing OF the sort. The Times comedies
that they are popular in the South and
quite 80 in Richmond and II is that
fact. deplored in Tho Times, which
causes The Times TO give the attention
TO the subject that It does give
The Times said Judge Atkins views
were not popular with the well inform
| cd" OF the South or OF Richmond, and
| The Times repeats that statement now.
| Those who do not know the rules of law
that govern tho granting of injunctions,
which are exactly the same in the Fede-
raj as in the State Courts, and who have
not reflected upon the intimate connection
between those rules OF law and all pro-
gressive civilization. are FESTIVE under
the suppression of violations of law by
the writ OF Injunction. But those who
understand the subject. whether in the
South. in Richmond or anywhere else
in the civilized world where the Anglo
Saxon civilization prevails. know that
the writ Of injunction is absolutely es-
sental to our civilization, and they believe
that the rules, long established and now
existing which regulate the granting OF
iniunctions. are the very perfection of
human reason that cannot be modified
or changed in the least without doing an
imparable injury TO our institutions. The
Dispatch will please note. therefore. that
it is the well informed" of the South
and Of Richmond with whom we said
Judge Atkins views are not popular and
that we limited our remark to them.
In our article of Wednesday. we stated
the well known rules which govern the
granting of injunctions and we asked the
Dispatch what change it would suggest
in those rules. our neighbor replies to
our article and cites a number Of in
stances in which number Of people
have been very much dissatisfied at in
functions that have been granted, but It
does not suggest any change whatever
that it would have made in the rule that
is 10 prevail. We submit that that sort
Of reasoning will not Go. When a system
OF laws has been wrought out by the
processes of evolutons operating through
centuries and adapting themselves
through experience to the average neces-
stiles of a population. it will not do TO
lay the rude hand Of the innovator upon
that system merely because certain in
dividuals of those going to make up the
whole of the society complain of the ope-
rations Of the system in some particular
instances. Those who complain of the
system to-day may be those who land
its operation tomorrow, and those who
to-day rejoice in the protection that II
gives to their lives. reputation and prop
erty may tomorrow be FESTIVE and dis
satisfied with it because it curbs their
unlawful desires and compes them TO
respect the rights of others. If such a
system is not TO be touched by the
rude hand of the innovator, how much
less is it to be trhed with by those
who cannot even suggest amendments
that they would make In IT.?
our ancestors said to their tyrannical
rulers 'nolumus leges Angliae mutare,"
and standing steadfast upon that propo-
sition they gradually worked themselves
out of the black darkness of the middle
ages and opened the door to the glorious
prospect that now spreads itself out be-
fore mankind. We should follow their
example Let us stand super antiques
Was" until a new path has been pointed
out TO us that we feel sure we can walk
upon more safely than the tried and old
road.
The one we have has stood the test of
ages and has brought us what we see
ell around US. No man can foretell
whittier we shall go if we give it up for
new and untried paths.