Arizona daily citizen., 1901-11-19

and Is so fraught with danger that
perhaps few words regarding the
theory OF this process and Its proper
application may be pertinent. Orig
inally it was purely chancery pro-
cess. but in course OF time II found Its
way to other courts. II goes without
saying that the injunction was not de-
signed to- prevent the commission OF
crimes The criminal law covers all
that There liz, for instance, neither
rhyme nor reason in courts issuing
an injunction to prohibit a person
from committing murder, arson. bur
glary, larceny. or assault and battery;
/ for there is standing injunction
| In the shape OF a law against each OF
these crimes and misdcmeanors. More
over positive wrong is done by every
! Judge who enjoins man from COM
mitting a crime, for the simple reason
/ tuition every man accused of violating
! the law is entitled to trial by jury:
/ whereas under injunction process he Is
/ deprived of his constitutional right,
and Is punished at the will or whim OF
the Judge for contempt of court. In
this way the court becomes an engine
OF oppression. for it is able to fine and
imprison men, who might be acquitted
before jury OF their peers to which
they are constitutionally entitled, The
impression Is unavoidable that the in
junction in criminal cases Is subter-
fuge and a wrong.
The injunction has undoubtedly q
useful and rational function. In the
first place 1t may be used legitlmately
to prevent breaches of contract. This
Is reasonable because II courts can
compel the performance of contract
they can interfere to prevent violations
OF It. Nobody can find fault with the
application of the process.
In the second place. the injunction
may be employed to prevent acts
except when these may be remedied
by an action for damages at law, 1t
will be readily seen that this is n leglti-
mate use OF the Injunction. A case
In point would be the issuance OF an
injunction against a tenant for life
who was wasting or destroying part of
an inheritance Here a wrong would
be righted by an injunction process.
In the third place. an injunction
would be entirely proper against a
person who was committing public
or private nuisance The person who
commits a nuisance perpetrates a
wrong on some other person or per-
sons The criminal law of course does
not cover case of this sort; there
fore the injunction Is the proper pro-
ceeding. In like manner the person
who infringes a patent, copyright or
trademark may be enjoined from con-
tinuing the wrong.
In the fourth place an injunction is
legitimate to prevent any threatened
or apprehended waste or trespass
Here again we have a remedy for a
wrong which may be contemplated.
Anyone who considers this matter
will see that the injunction Is super
fluous in furnishing crime; and 1t often
leads to an indirect amendment of the
constitution, which guarantees to
every person accused OF violating the
law trial by jury. The real purpose
of the process Is to remedy wrong
which, II continued, might become lr-
reparable, or might entail loss which
could not be recouped An author
copyrights his book and some pub
Usher ignores the fact and brings out
a cheaper edition. Unless he is en-
Joined. he may sell a great many of
the books, thus injuring the authors
SALE and at the same time probably
making 1t impossible to recover dam
ages. To right the wrong 1t must be
righted Immediately. SO, too, with
reference to a nuisance, or the vast
ing OF an inheritance by a limited
owner, or threatened trespass
Where the matter in debate Is covered
by the criminal law, or there is an ade-
quate remedy by suit for damages.
the Injunction Is not only superHuous,
but is In itself a wrong.
Some of our federal courts have
gone beyond all reason In granting In
functions. They have enJoined men
from "picketIng," which Is neither a
crime nor wrong They have on
joined men from accostng workers to
induce them by persuasion to quit
work-which is neither a crime nor
wrong. They have enjoined men from
going to the houses of workers for the
purpose OF persuading them not to
work--an offense unknown to the law
They have enjoined men and women
and children from holding mass
meetings to consider their own cause.
and formulate course of action In a
strike. In one instance, even the
preacher who was addressing a mass