Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1900-10-11

pie and as declaratory Of the COM
mon law that the judiciary act of
1889 in its sixteenth section de-
clares that suits in.equity shall not
be sustained in any Of the courts Of
the United States in any case where
plain, adequate aud complete rem
edy may be had at law
Federal Courts Prchibitod.
1.-The Federal courts are TINS
prohibited by the Constitution and
the laws Of Congress from enter
tanning any suit in equity for any
! purpose when the cause OF action
can be fully dealt with in Federal
court Of law. II, therefore, appli-
cation be made to Federal court
Of equity by any person or corpora
ton for the aid OF that court to- es-
tablish or enforce any right claimed
against another party, whatever
may be the relief asked for, if the
thing complained Of be one for
which Federal court Of common
law having a jury can give redress,
that Federal court Of equity is dis
tincsIy prohibited by the Constitu-
ton and the lave Of the United
States from entertaining tho appli-
cation.
consequently If Federal court
be applied to to prevent or enjoin
an individual or any number Of in
diyiduals from doing an act for do
ing which the parties complained
OF could be dealt with in q conrt Of
law, the Federal court muat deny
the application, because to grant it
would be to deprive The other party
of his right Of trial by jury seour.
ed to him by the Constitution
"For instance, II the act com
planned Of be . criminal act the
party charged with doing The sot
has an absolute right to DO tried by
jury for doing it, II the act com.
planned Of be breach Of contract
the party guilty Ok that breach can
not be deprived, By the interyon-
ton Of Federal court Of equity
Of his right Of trial BY jury
The Chicago Case.
"If the act complained OF be breach
Of Federal law as was claimed in the
proceedings taken in the Federal court
Of Chicago to enioin, as was claimed,
breach Of the law Of interstate com
merce, the parties guilty Of that act
even II the act had been declared crimi-
nal BY Congress and they had been sub
iect to punishment for doing it, Fcdc-
RAJ court Of equity would have been pro-
hibited from entertaining any applica-
| ti0n for an INDUCTION against them, boz
cause they would have been entitled to
a trial In a Federal criminal court by
| jury and could not be tried by Federal
court Of equity Nay, more than this,
even Congress itself cannot give Fed
eral court Of equity jurisdiction over
matter which can be tried by a jury, be-
cause it is beyond the power of Con
gress to disregard the provisions Of the
Constitution, which secures The right of
trial by jury beyond the power Of Con-
gress
at thus would appear that what is
called in rather eontemptuous way the
| Populistic ides Of resisting the author
lty Of the United States courts is moth
| ing in the world but the revival Of
struggle between the common law courts
and the civil law courts which began
centuries ago and which, 80 far as the
courts Of the United States are concern
ed, was finally settled by the Constitu.
ton and the Act OF 1880, adopted by
Congress which many trainers of the
0uUbtbutlou were nltuhptIs anu WHICH
was approved by Gen. George Washing
ton
Washington And Roosevelt.
IF the present opposition to the use
Of the process ofinjunction 10 effect the
ends Of government be opposition to the
rightful authority Of Judge Of any of
the courts Of the United States, Gen
George Washington was the first Presi-
dent who approved a law which sane.
lions such opposition, and Isuppose that
the naughty and imperial Roosevelt will
for that reason denounce General Wash
ington as q Populist.
II think that the American people
will be slow to prefer the empty yapor-
ing Of Roosevelt to the tried patriotism
Of George Washington,
'If to follow George Washington in
regard to the use of the free principles
of the common law, rather than the inn
perial maxims and principles of the civ
il law, is Populism, it will be found, l
hope, that 'Populism' is a fixed habit