The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-07-28

NAAFAA N0AtkAUhEA0F ~ NAAAAE ~ s.AAtAA a.
sistanee-. These principles have for
great many years been settled By the
courts Of this country.
Threatened unlawful injuries 10 bust |
ness. like those described above. can
only be adequately remedied BY an IN
junction TO prevent them The jurisdic-
tiOn OF a court Of equity TO euJOin IN
such cases arises from the character OF
! the injury and the method Of inficung
| ii and the fact that suit for damages
I offers no adequate remedy. The unlaW-
I ful injury II not usually done BY one I
single act which. might be adequately
| compensated for in damages by suit
/ at law, but II IS the result OF a con-
stantly recurring series Of acts. each or
/ which in itself might rot constitute a
substantial injury or make suit al law
worth while, and all Of which would re-
Quire a multiplicity Of suits al law In
/ juries Of this class have since the
/ foundation OF courts OF equity been
/ prevented by Injunction.
Refers to Injunctions.
| II has been claimed that injunctio1s
/ do not issue to protect anything but
/ property rights. and that business IS
! not n property right: but such prop
| ositiOn is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions Of the courts The Su-
! prene Court Of the United States says
| that the injunction is a remedy 10 pro-
! tect property or rights Of a pecunIary
/ nature. and we may well submit 10
the considerable judgment OF all lay
/ men whether the right Of man IN
/ his business is not as distinctly a right
/ Of a pecuniary nature as the right 20
/ his horse OF his house OF the stock or
! goods on his shelf, and the instances
in which injUnctiOns 10 protect bust
! ness have been upheld by all courts
/ are so many that IT IS futile further 10
discuss the proposition
| II IS difficult 10 tell the meaning OF
9 MA
/ jet Il says
Questions Of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection With in
dustrial disputes We deem that the
I be treated with rigid impartialty, and
that fnJunCtiOns should not be issued
in any cases IN which injunctiOns would
not issue II no Industrial dispute were
involved"
! This declaration is disingenuous- It
Il seems 10 have been loosely drawn with
susceptible 70 one Interpretation by one
set OF men and 70 a dia1uetriCally Op-
pOsite Interpretation by another. Il
does not aver that injunctlOns should
not issue IN Industrial disputes, but
only that they should not issue merely
because they are industrial disputes,
and yet those responsible for the de-
ClaratiOn must have known tha- no
one has g. - maintained that the fact
that a dispute was Industrial gave any
basis for issuing an injunction IN refer
enCe thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn in
its present vague and ambiguous shape
IN order to persuade some people that
Il is a declaration against the issuing Of
/ in1unct!Ons IN any Industrial dispute,
While at the same time Il may be pos
/ sible 20 explain 10 the average plain
citizen who objects 20 class distinction
/ that 10 such intention exists al all. Our
/ position is clear and UuequiVOCal- We
are anxious 10 prevent even an appear
% of f~a frrer~ frsel HnNn
: issuance OF inJunctiOns. not in a spirit
OF favOritism 10 one set Of our fellow
/ citizens. but OF Justice 70 all OF our
fellow citizens. The reason for exer-
! cising or refusing 20 exercise the power
70 OF injunction must be found in the
r character OF the unlawful injury and
not in the character or class Of the per
: sons who infiict this injury.
p The man who has a business which IS
, being unlawfully injured is entitled 20
the remedies which the law has always
/, given him. no matter who has Inflicted
!. the injuries Otherwise. we shall have
: class legislation unjust in principle and
I likely 20 sap the foundations Of free
p government
Hearing Before Issue.
I come now 10 the question OF notice
before issuing an injunction II IS a
I fundamental rule Of general jurIsprud-
enCe that no man shall be affected By
a judicial proceeding without notice and
, hearing. This rule. however. has some
times had an exception in the issuing OF
, temporary restraining -rders command
ing q defendant IN effect 20 maintain
, the status quo until a hearing Such
= a process should issue only in rare cases
where The threatened. change OF the
/ status quo would infict irreparabIe in
{ jury If time were taken 10 give notice
E and a summary hearing.
The unlawful injury usual in indus
5 trial disputed, such as have described
D does not become formidable except after
q sufficient time in which 20 give the
defendants notice and a hearing. I do
{ not mean 10 say that there may not be
s cases even in industrial disputes where
; a restraining order might properly be
! issued without notice, but, generally,
! think II otherwise.
f In some State courts. and in fewer
D Federal courts, the practice Of ISSUING
2 a temporary restraining order without
= notice merely 10 preserve the status QUO
e on the theory that IL won't hurt any
i, body, has been too common. Many O,
q Us recall that the practice has beer
e pursued IN other than Industrial dis
putes, as, for instance, in corporate ans
: stock controversies like those over IN,
Z Erie railroad, in which a stay ordel
d without notice was regarded as a steJ
e OF great advantage 20 the one who Sc
. cured II, and a corresponding disad
vantage 10 the one against whom il va!
| secured.
Indeed, the chances Of doing injustict
/ on an eX-parte application axe mucI
. | increased over Those when a hearing !:
: I granted, ana there may be circuIn
u stances under which II may affect IN.
y defendant 70 his detriment. In h,
e case of a lawful strike, the sending o.
+ 4 formidable document restraining :
. number Of defendants from doing :
i greaT many different things which thJ
. Plaintiff AYERS they are threatening [,
= 90, often so diSCOUrages men always
e reluctant TO go into a strike fIOm eOn
y tinuing what is their lawful right
This ms made the labOring man fee
3 that an injustice is done in the issuins
e Of a writ without notice. 1 conceive
s that in the treatment Of this question
5 il IS the duty Of the citizen and the leg
g islator 20 view :he subject from tn,
d standpoint Of the man who believe
himself 10 be UnjUstiy treated, as vel
. as from that o. the community a
u large.
l have suggested the remedy Of re
: turning in such cases to the OrfCina
Il practice under the old statute of Tn
r United States and the rules in eduit
I~,.1 til H. =