The evening times., 1900-10-03

| ton OF Mr. Mckinley and the cont1lu-
| ance CT Mckinley control to state d.
| nitely and fairly the purpose for which
| they desire nemcerstlee aid They csn-
+, not, as pI4dens Iii. d,si. thl fe-ei.e-
| tiCn of a man who has proved utterly
| untrustworthy upon the subject OF the
/ currency; that is. l say has proved un
! trustworthy unless he has fulfilled by
| the present legislation the promise ne
! made at the time of his election IN
| 1885: and shall We accept all the other
| mischiefs which attend McKinlsyism in
| order to give him another opportunity
| to do what he has had the opportunity y
TO do. and what he has signally failed to
do, if what his Secretary of the Treas
ury says of the legislation that has been
| adopted is true?"
Government by Injunction.
Colonel Marshall holds some very pro-
nounced views on the question Of govern
ment by injunction, as will be seen from
the following:
"One of the principles declared in the
| Chicago platform of 1895 and adopted by
the present Democratic platform, said
(! Colonel Marshall, declares against gov
! eTnment by injunction.
LAS l understand this declaration It
means opposition 10 the use by the Federal
! courts OF the writ of injunction to restrain
! one man or any combination of men whose
! object is to accomplish something which
| the party seeking the injunction alleges to
| be illegal and preJudfcial to his rights.
The plank of the platform referred to
holds that the Federal courts cannot law
! fully issue a writ Of injunction to restrain
such individual or combination of individ-
uals and punish for contempt of court all
! persons, WhSther parties to the suit or
| merely named in the injunction, thelt
! services and agents for disobeying such an
! injunction.
| las the platform only deals with Fed
/ eral courts and the Federal law, l shall
| consider this plank as it relates to thoss
! courts and the injunction as sought to be
| had from a Federal court.
THE meaning is that the Democratic
! party is now openly opposing the enforce
ment of a right by the use of the writ OF
| injunction issued by Federal court.
Safeguard of Liberty.v
From the common law springs that
safeguard of liberty embo died in the writ
! of habeas corpus and the laws made to
/ secure the most effectual certain, and
! prompt execution of that writ The civil
! law knew of no such protection against
! the infringement of personal liberty.
THE difference between the two sys-
tens is strikingly illustrated by the
means taken by a people that knew only
! the principles of the common law and a
/ people that had grown up under those
of the civil law to accomplish the same
! obiect-the security of personal liberty
! between the men who conducted the
! English people through the revolution of
1855 which finally delivered England
! from the tyranny OF the false and
/ treacherous Stuarts and the mob that
| dragged France through the horrors OF
the French Revolution of 1883 into the
I
! poIeon. The men of the English r5yo-
! luton secured personal liberty by so
! perfecting the habeas corpus law that
no person deprived of his liberty was
/ feeble and so obscure that he could not
/ call tie wnole power Of England TO de-
/ liver him from unlawful Imprisonment
/ by the King himself. They left the pris-
ons standing, because they thought that
/ prisons would always be of use for bad
/ men, but they gave the key of the prison
! into the hands of thas law as declared by
/ the courts OF England, SO that the N an
( est subject could demand the imIedia e
! opening of the prison door and prompt
enquiry by an impartial and Independent
/ court into the cause of his impr N
ment with authority to set him free
unless just and legal cause for his i'm
! prisonment should be shown.
Those who conducted the French Revo-
| luton, to attain the same object, in their
Just wrath tore down the Bastile; but a
| hundred prisons far mere terrible than
the Bastile rose in its place, and the Sc
| curity of personal liberty died in France
/ for years.
But the most striking illustration of
! the difference between the rules and pro-
! ceedings derived from The civil law and
/ those furnished by the common law will
be found if we examine the traces left
/ of that struggle, upon our own judicial
! system itself.
Courts of Liberty.
/ "One mark of that struggle viii be found
! in the form yet used in asking a court of
/ equity for its assistance in enforcing a
right which contains the averment that
the party seeking such assistance is with
out relief in a court OF law. and to this
day the fact that suitor can get relief
in a court Of law is a complete answer to
/ his application for relief in court OF
/ equity In the Federal courts under the
/ sixteenth section OF the Judiciary Act OF
! 1888, now Section 723 of the United States
! Revised Statutes. it was enacted that
! suits in equity shall not be sustained in
any of the courts of the United States
! where plain, adequate and complete rene
/ dy can be had at law The reason OF this
! provision of law, as stated by the Su-
! preme Court of the United States in
| Grand-Chute VS.. Vinegar, 10 Wallace, 375
| repeated in many other cases., is as fol-
/ lows
. The right to a trial by jury is a great
constitutional right, and il is only in ex-
| ceptional cases that a party may be de-
! prived of it. 1t is in vindication of this
| great principle and as declaratory OF the
common law that the judiciary act of 1855
! in its sixteenth section declares that suits
| in equity shall not be sustained in any of
! the courts of the United States in any
| case where plain, adequate, and complete
remedy may be had at law.
Federal Courts Prohibited.
THE Federal courts are thus prohibited
by the Constitution aud the laws of Con-
gress from entertaining any suit in equity
for any purpose when the cause of action
can be fully dealt with in Federal court
OF law. If, therefore, application be made
to Federal court of equity by any person
or corporation for the aid of that court TO
I establish or enforce any right claimed
against another party, whatever may be
the relief asked for, if the thing COM
/ planned of be one for which a Federal court
of common law having'a jury can give re-
tinctly prohibited by the Constitution ana
the laws of the United States from enter :
| tanning the application.
Consequently if Federal court be ap-
| piled to TO prevent or enjoin an individual
or any number of individuals from doing
an act for doing which the parties com.
/ planned of could be dealt with in a court
of law, the Federal court must deny the
! apDlicdtjOn hec9use To grant IL wnuId ha