The weekly examiner., 1901-07-27

as a rule, every one m the past WHICH when issued has seemed to draw more and more tightly on the guaranteed con- stitutional rights of personal liberty have been and are being issued by our judges conformably to our system' or lack of system, and in the fullest sense of honesty and propriety. AS we said, it is the custom, the system itself, that is wholly wrong and should be properly regulated by legislation, and at once.
 The Examiner man knows of many instances where matters have been pre-
 sented to individual judges by attorneys
 seeking the extraordinary remedy or ln-
 junction, where even the judges who
 signed such orders really wished that
 ssthis cup might pass from me- But
 the papers conformed to all the formal requirements in shape, language, sub-
 feet matter, and were formally vouched for by the applicant or his lawyer as to
 their truth and the great injury to hls interests imminent and sure to occur II
 this remedy was not invoked; and the
 papers so made out made it the plain
 technical duty of the judge to sign the order and issue the writ, however dis inclined he may have personally felt to do so. Had he had by custom the priv ilege to stop to inquire into the actual truth of the allegations, CT to have ln- sisted before issuing his order on brief hearing of actual facts, so that he could act intelligently in the first issue instead of being wholly bound to the appended and formal affidavit of the applicant or his agent, we doubt if there is a judge on the bench who would not, before signing his order, gladly have the en- lightenment on such main facts from a few witnesses on each side. But, as the custom and practice of procedure now is, the lawyer draws up the application, stating what facts he pleases, he ap- bends the general oath of his client merely as a matter of form-he catches a judge in vacation, in court, at the theater, going home, on the railroad, at a picnic, on a yachting outing, in camp in the woods, in fact anywhere he can get track of him, hands him the apph- cation for injunction, often long, winded complicated affair, favorable of course to his client. The judge looks to see if he has formally sworn to and signed ssit, and seeing that such is the case-then the attorney also has pre- pared and appended in form long or der, penalty, etc., for the judge to sign, which is the courts order of in- junction-the judge signs it, and the thing is done. Under the custom, 1t IS doubtful if a request of the judge was made, to.swhom the lawyer first applies, that he be fully enlightened by more evidence than cient-applicant's simple appended affidavit, would, as the custom is, be at all within his province or duty. It is more than probable that the apply ing attorney would resent such d re- quest as not in line with practice and custom. It is wrong indeed and'a mis- take that our legal practice places aduty on our judges to sign such extraordinary writs and yet provides for them no pre- iminary hearing on which intelligent action may be taken. The whole fault lies with the legislature for it's neglect to provide better plan of procedure.
 We are informed by a leading attorn- ey of long practice that seldom does the plaintiff applicant for an injunction himself appear in court for the judge to question as to the equity and propriety of the peremptory interference in such an order The practice should all be overhauled and regulated. This due to the people, as American citizens, with specific guaranteed rights.
 Teke the case of the injunction issued last week against the Ansonia strikers by Judge Gager. It is but fair to say the injunction fails in many important particulars to express Judge Gager's actual views in such matters, or that it's leading principles would even receive his mental appreciation. But he could not-our practice in such matters not permitting him-weigh before signing the writ the balancing equities or in- equities-the question for instance: els this application so equitable and just that on its future trial the enjoined par ties cannot show immensely counter equities?" But by our prac tice and procedure he was only at iber- ty to ask two questions, and if answered the law made it his inn perative duty to sign the order of tenn porary injunction, until the matter of it's permanency came up regularly be- fore the court on full hearing by both sides. One of these questions he had to decide was this ''Is there enough griev- ance stated and alleged and sworn to in this writ, which if true raises of itself