The Bon Homme County independent. [volume] (Tabor, S.D.) 1904-1913, 1908-08-06

W. EL1HA Lrr#W
erty right but such a proposition IL wholly
courts. The supreme court OF the United
States says that the Injunction is a rem
edy. to protect property or rights of a pc
to. the considerable Judgment OF all laymen
whether the right of q man In his bust
ness is not as distinctly a right of a pc
GU ern hss hd nature g as the right to his horse
shelf, the instances In which inJunc-
tions to protect business lave been upheld
by ell courts, are SO many that It IL futile
It is difhcuIt to tell the meaning of the
democratic platform ape this subject. 1t
says:
Questions OF judicial practice have
arisen especially In connection with in
dustrial disputes. We deem thai the
parties to all judicial proceedings should
be treated with rigid im~partiality, and that
inJunctions should not be issued in any
cases in which inJunctions would not issue
II no Industrial dispute were involved"
The declaration is disingenious. 1t seems
to have been loosely drawn with the pur-
pose of rendering 1t susceptible to one
Interpretation by one set of mens and to
a diametrically opposite Interpretation by
another. IT does not aver that injunctions
should not issue In Industrial disputes, but
only that they should not issue because
they are industrial disputes, and yet those
responsible for the declaration must have
known that no one ever maintained that
the fact that a dispute was Industrial gave
any basis for issuing al injunction in
reference thereto. The declaration seems
to be drawn In Its present vague and
that II Is a declaration against the issue
of injunctions in any Industrial dispute,
while at the same time it may be possible
who objects to class distinctions that no
such intention exists. Our position Is
clear and unequivocal. We are anxious
to prevent even an appearance OF In
1At 60 lnhAH ~ ul- 49,
not In the spirit of favoritism to any set
of our fellow citizens. but In the interest
of Justice to all. The reason for exer-
cising or refusing to exercise the power
acter of the unlawful injury and not in
the character or class of the persons who
inf1ict the injury.
The man who has a business which is
being u~nlawfully injured is entitled to
the remedies which the law has always
given him, no matter who has inflicted
the injuries. Otherwise we shall nave
class legislation unjust in principle and
likely to sap the foundations OF a free
government.
Issue Of Injunction.
l come now to the question of notice
before issuing an injunction. 1t is a
that no man shall be affected by a judi
cial proceeding without notice and hear
Ing. This rule, however, has sometimes
porary restraining orders commanding a
defendant in effect to 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
inflict irreparable injury II time
were taken to give notice and a summary
hearing. The unlawful injury usual in
i srGinnd do% disputes such as ha Se de-
cept after sufficient time in which to give
the defendants notice and a hearing. l
do not mean to say that there may not
hn nn1nn AWYnW. IL -.4A wglaA-
a restraining order might properly be
issued without notice, but generally 1
think it is otherwise In some state
courts, and in fewer federal courts, the
practice Of issuing a temporary restrain
ing order without notice merely to pre-
serve the status gu on the theory that
1t won't hurt anybody has been too com
mon. Many Of US recall that the practice
trial disputes, as, for instance, in cor
porate and stock controversies like those
over the Erie railroad, in which a stay
order without notice was regarded as a
step of great advantage to the one who
secured 1t and a corresponding disad-
vantage to the one against whom 1t was
secured. Indeed, the chances of doing
on an ex parte application are
much Increased over these when a hear
ing is granted, and there nay be circum-
stances under which 1t may affect the
Of a lawful strike the sending Of a for
midable document restraining O. number
OF defendants from doing a great many
different things which the plaintiff AYERS
they are threatening to do, often so dis
men always reluctant to go into
e strike from n~nntjnutnp what Is their
lawful right. This has made the labor
ing man feel that an injustice Is done
l conceive that in the treatment of this
question 1t is the duty of the citizen and
the legislator to view the subject from the
Of the man who believed him
self to be unjustly treated, as well as
from that of the community at large. I
suggested the remedy of returning
In such cases to the original practice un-
der the old statute of the United States
and the rules in equity adopted by the
supreme court, which did not permit the
issuing of an injunction without notice.
In this respect the republican convention
has adopted another remedy that, with
out going SO far, promises to be effica-
cious In securing roper consideration in
such cases by courts, by formulating into
= legislative act the best present prac-
Under this recommendation a statute
may be framed which shall define with
particularly and emphasis
the exceptional character of the cases in
which restraining orders may issue with
out notice, and which shall also provide
when they are issued they shall
cease to be operative beyond a short
period, during which time notice shall be
served and a hearing had, unless the de-
fandant desires q postponement of the
hearing. By this provision the injustice
which has sometimes occurred by which
a preliminary restraining order OF widest
has been issued without no.
tice and the hearing Of the motion for
the Injunction has been fixed weeks and
months after its date could not recur.
The number Of instances In which re-
straining orders without notice In In
disputes lave issued by federal
courts Is small, and it is urged that they
do not therefore constitute an error to
be remedied by statutory amendment.
The small humble Of cases complained
of above, shows the careful manner in
which most federal judges have exercised
the jurisdiction, but the belief that such
cases are numerous has been so wide |
spread n has aroused such feeling of
that more definite specification
In procedure to prevent recurrence of
them is justified II 1t can be effected with
injury to the administration of the
law.
With respect to notice the democratic
platform contains no recommendation It's
only Ineligible declaration in regard to
suits Is a reiteration of the
plank in the platforms of 1896 and 1904
providing that in prosecutions for con-