The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-01-09
WHAT Is SIT ALL ABOUT

I
injunction No one can tell how far the
judiciary will stretch its power in that
direction. The state Of Tennessee has
lust been made 20 feel 10 This year the
assessment OF railroad property In that
| State was increased so that the aggregate
tax paid by the roads will be $40 900 in
| stead of $4,000 Judge Clarke, Of the
| United states District court has, at the
prayer OF the railroads. granted per
pctual injunction restraining the state
authorities from collecting tho incrcos q
tax. II it comes TO this, that a state
cannot assess tho property within it's
limits. then the very existence OF a state
IS put in peril for at no time can IT he
certain OF its revenue as long as the
cTedral courts have power over its taxa
ton We have fallen upon strange times
in the republic.
This is a striking illustration Of how
men viii differ in their views OF the same
subject The plank in the Chicago plat
form declaring for the free coinage OF a
silver doller worth only fifty cents. which
men were to be compelled to accept for
"A whole dollar due to them. was Of course
one Of the very worst features OF the
whole scheme. But along with that, the
very worst feature OF the Chicago
scheme was its denunciation Of govern
mcut by injunction
II there were really any government
by Injunction" in this country, we might
possibly be rs much disposed to resent it
as our contemporary IS.
But there is no government by injunc-
! ton" I'm this country. We have gov
crnment of laws and we have courts TO
enforce those laws. SO long as mon obey
the laws the courts are never called into
activity. It is only when men violate
the laws that wo know we have courts
! and then the courts 90 no moro than
compel people who wish TO violate the
! laws to submit TO them and We do not
SEQ how men can live together in So
| ciety unless the courts do compel the
| refractory 10 submit 10 and obey the
laws. The courts in that case are no
more than the mouthpiece Of an orderly
society, which commands its rebcllious
| members 10 abandon their lawicss self
| assortiveness and bow their heads to
| those regulations that the majority have
| determined TO be essential to the peace
and good order Of all. We cannot have
| society without laws and we cannot have
| laws worth a moments attention, with
| out courts 10 enforce them.
What is the meaning of all this row
over government by injunction" any
how? Those who maintained the Chi
caeo doctrine make no pretonce that they
want TO see the law violated. Their
whole claim is that when n violation Of
| law is in question the parties proposing
! 10 violate il should be permitted 10 do
! 50 and that they can then be made
! anewerable for their violation Of IL by
| suits for damages or by criminal prose-
cutions. The whole question therefore
is whether arrogant men are TO be pre-
vented from violating the law at the
outset. or whether they are 10 be allow
cd IN violate it and then take tho con-
| eoauonces. For centuries it has been an
| accepted idea in our scheme Of govern
mont that if the threatened violation
vould produce an injury 10 some one that
could not be adequately compensated IN
DAMAGES the party threatening the viola
ton should be prevented from doing the
iniurv I'm advance. is that not a most
reasonable ana wholesome doctrine?
What class Of men is interested TO have
fl abandoned? We cannot conceive OF
anv man who wants that sound and
wholesome principle abandoned but
some one who wants IAN opportunity 10
violate the law. IT seems TO MS that
| o,-o,.y GOOD citizen who wishes 10 see n
man allowed TO push his futures along 10
the hest Of his ability, ought 10 rejoice
,bot tho courts will forbid n malicious
o,1 IRRESPONSIBLE follow who wants TO
null him down. from inficting n ""n'oh
injury upon him What compensation
is It TO a man who has spent all he has
and the best years Of his life in building
M a manufacturing enterprise TO tell him
| that if a mob Of insolvents destroyed his
| business he can sue them for damages
or have them prosecuted crimnally?
As for the particular case that the
Observation-Disclosures speaks Of, we know
nothing Of it's special facts, But this
we do know, The constitution of the
| United States 10 which the State Of
| Tennessee has given its assent, forbids
the States of this Union TO do certain
| things and # provides a United States
| judiciary TO enforce its prohibitions. II
| the state of Tennessee. in laying its tax
| es. dlsregards the prohibitions Of the con-
| stitution OF the United States the United
| States judges ought TO enjoin the officers
OF the State from executing those State
| laws We assume that the case in
| question is one in which the prohibitions
Of the constitution has been disregard
ed and that being so, We see no reason
why the Federal judge should not have
| compelled observance of the constitution.
| ----------------
M'KINLEY's BLUNDER.
| fp Alabama w,