The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-09-05
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1900.
GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION
AGAIN

AGAIN.
In his Labor-Day speech al Chicago last
Monday, Mr.. William ]. Bryan used the
Following language in discussing Govern
ment by Injunction. He said:
The attempt to use the lnJuncuon Oh
court to deprive the labornS man Oh st!al
7,y jury should alarm all our people, Tor
while the wage Garner is the first to feel
it's Effects the principle which underlies
government by injunction is so far-reacb-
ing that no one can hope to escape uitl-
amaIely. The thing forbidden by an inJunc-
tion would without the Injunction, be either
legal or Illegal. If 1T would be legal Tue
Judge usurps the function OF the Legs
nature when he forb.as it If 1T would be
illegal. the injunction of the court is I'M
necessary, for anyone who violates the
law can. upon conviction. be made 10
suffer the penalties prescribed for suca
violation. The meanest tt,ief and the most
brutal murderer are entitled TO trial by
jury Why should the right be denied the
1aboring man2
As usually happens in attempts to argue
by the redactio ad absrrcum process. there
Is palpable fallacy in Mr.. Bryan's argu-
ment- Indeed there are two palpabie fall
7acies in this one. One fallacy is the state
junction is unnecessary, because whoever
violates the law cap be punished upon
conviction. The other is the intimation
that the laboring man is denied the trial
by jury that is given the meanest thief
and most brutal murderer. II the labor
ing man steals or murders, he is given a
jury trial, and it would be idle for Mr..
Bryan to suggest that he is not. Courts
OF Equity, however. punish contempts of
their authority without the Intervention
OF jury, and they do this whether the
offender is a thief and a murderer or
whether he is q lahoring man. No dis
tinction therefore. is made between the
thief and murderer upon the one hand
and the laboring man upon the other, to
the disadvantage Of the iabo-ing man. in
this matter The second fallacy is in Mr.
Bryans statement thai If an act is un-
lawful an injunction is unnecessary, be-
cause whoever violates The law can be pun
ished upon conviction. This IS absolutely
and demcnstrabiy not true. There are
many violations of the Law for which in
Z functions are awarded which are not
crimes. and they are, therefore, without
p,inishments. There may. be civil actions
for damages in respect 10 these, ii is true,
but of what avail to man who has a
100000 plant destroyed by mob is an
action for dana.es against that moha
Mobs are rroverbially composed of irnpe-
,cunious individuals. A verdict for dam
ages against mob would. therefore, be
O. no more avail than Judgment against
a Hack of crows, and unless the owner of
the piant can get p-ohibi;iye relief he must
i be ruined without PREPARATION. Indeed. Mr..
Bryan's proposition comes down in its
last analysis 10 a statement that in,nnc-
iions are unnecessary in any case what
eyer. 1t is equivalent TO rs saying that
he would abolish the writ of Injunction
and never allow any court whatever 20
en5oin any threatened injury. for he says
Z II an act Is Illegal an Injunction is I'M
necessary. we doubt very much whether
M. Bryan considered the FIJI import OF
4 this Language when tie used it Fearless
] as he is we do not believe he would stand
before the American people and say there
: HIS no cases OF threatened injury Whleh
n court OF equity should be allowed TO
ensoin. and set that Is what he means.
h he means what he has said. The truth
Is that civilized insslkir.a all over The world
comedies that preventive justice is just as
necessary To an orderly civilization as
remedial justice is. and the line Which cur
courts OF equity have adopted as that
upon which insunctions should be awarded
{ Is The true line. the only line anu the.
line (which is ahsolntely essential To the
presersaiion Of lax. order and a growth
) 81 prosperity The principle upon which
& they arc awarded and refused is that Il
me threatened injury Is one which ca. be
= aAeaua1eiy compensated n damages by
s &. the verdict OF a jury M Injunction viii
h DC granted. but 4 tho threatened injury
Il ! pne that cannot 30 adequately COM
s. ntted Ia damages by the verdict Of a