The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1902-10-10
GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION.

! w v Elm MIMI 01 lNJ DNVllUN.
| In democratic and populisti: plat.
forms, in the columns of newspapers,
and upon the stump we have been
hearing much OF late years about tie
danger of government by injunctien.
1t has been pictured as one of the great
evils of the day. as republican IT.
stitution, brought forward to Cypress
the people, and as having been de-
vised especially for the benefit OF capt.
tai to aid in its contests with labor
The truth is that the form of legal
writ known as an injunction is about
as old as the common law. 1t is one Of
the least expensive methods of relief
through the courts and is thus es.
pecially adapted for the use OF the poor
in purse.
II is not our intention to defend all
! the injunctions that have ever bee
issued acy more than we would wish to
defend all the decisions of courts and
juries.
! There is so much demagogism about
the continued cry against injunctions
that it would be we'll to get clear Ut
derstanding as to its use and purposes.
An injunction is a process OF law by
which a person is restrained from
committing an otfense. This is the
sum and substance of the fearful in
strument of tortured. An injunction
has no more terror for the lava biding
CITIZEN than does the policeman his
| beat,
| II a person has reason TO believe that
another has intent TO trespass upon his
rights, he has the privilege OF going
fore the court and asking writ to
prevent commission of the offense.
In order to obtain an injunction two
things must be proven: first that there
/ some act to the detrimenb of the Az
plicant is intended. Second, that the
act would be an otfense against the
law. If these facts be proved a tenn
porary injunction may be issued which
can be made permanent only after the
defends IT has had full opportunity to
answer and the burden of proof is al.
ways upon the applicant Thus i, fol-
lows that no one can be enJoineS from
doing Il lawful act. Ii man has no
intention of burning his neighbour
barn he has suffered nothing by being
restrained from so doing. If on the
other nand such had BEEN his inten-
ton it is wise provision which allows
the neighbor to take time by the fore
LOCK and head him Of.
Az a youth we remember case
which was to the point One evening
we were in lunch room with friend
named Charlie In conversation we
naturally called him by name. Now it
SO happened that across the room was
drunken man whose name was also
Charlie. He thought we were address
ing him and suddenly, and without
warning be leaped to his feet, pulled
revolver and started toward US, wav.
ing the gun in the air and threatening
to shoot if we addressed him again.
The man was in such drunken con.
dition that it is wonder the revolver
was not discharged whether the fellow
intended it or not. The proprietor
and base ball bat caused the fellow
to desist. In the room at the time were
two policemen neither made a move
to interfere. After the excitement
was over and the fellow had sneaked
out of the room we asked them why
| they had made no move. sob" they
replied, "if he had shot you we would
have arrested him." This is exactly
the kind of law we would have should
the restraining power of the courts be
removed. For their Interpretation Of
den. ocratic justice the two policemen
we're removed and this is just what
should happen to any man who
breaches against the law of injunction
We do not believe in the abuse of the
injunction power, but as great legal
method of preventing the infringement
of personal or property rights the in
| junction is one of the most necessary
and useful of legal processes
| Court House NOticp