The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1908-07-29
'CH|EEFUNCn0N
THOSE IN POWER
T0P j LAWS.
Work Of Next Administra.
ton to Give Full Ef-
feet to That Of
Present One.

diction OF 3 court OF equity to en,oin
In such cases arises from the charac.
ter Of the injury and the method 81
tntlicting 1t and the fact that suit for
damages offers no adequate remedy.
d ,Lhe unlawful IN. injury Is not usually
bn adequately compensated for In dam
ages by suit at law. but 1t Is the
result of constantly recurring series
not Constitute sub s injurv is ~
make q suit at law worth while. and
all OF which would require a multi
plicity OF suits at lazy. Injuries OF this
courts OF equity. been prevented by
Injunction.
It has been claimed that injunctions
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights. and that business Is
osition is wholly Inconsistent with all
the decisions OF the courts. The su.
preme Court OF the United States says
that the Injunction Is remedy 10
p protscl Property prop or rights OF pscg.
to the confederate Judgment Of ali lny-
men whether the right OF q man IN
his ."siness Is not as distinctly a right
his horse or his house or the stock OF
goods on his shelf; and the instances
in which injunctions to protect busl-a
moss have been upheld by all courts are
discuss the proposition
II is difficult to tell the meaning IT
the Dsmocratic platform upon this
Questions Of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with
parties TO all judicial proceedings
and shss Mh nfl sho ,m1als rot
functions would not issue 81 il no Indus u.s.
tri l. 4 dIsp .ats y were inyoIysd''
sne espeSlal purpose OF rendering 1t
susceptible to one interpretation BY
one set q men and to q diametrically
does not aver that in1unctions should
not issue in Industrial disputes.
but only that they should not
issue merely because they are In
dnsu!al disputes. and yet those respon-
sibls Tor the declaration must have
"a that the Tact that dispute was
industrial gave any BASIS for issuing
an Injunction IN reference thereto.
n It's present vague and ambiguous
shape IN order to persuade some peo-
pie that It is declaration against tho
Issuing Of inJnnctions IN any indus
II may be possible to explain to tbs
average plain citizen. who OBJECTS TO
c eia distlnctions. that no auch inten-
and unequivccal. We are anxious Ia
prevent even an appearances OF any
injustice to labor in the issuance OF
in1unctions. not in e spirit OF fayorit-
ism TO one sat of our fellow-citizens,
but OF Justice to all OF our fellow
citizens. The reason for exercising or
r. mi,a.,ng to exercise the power Of In
acter OF the unlawful injury. and not
In the character or class OF the persona
who indict this injury.
The man who has a business which
Is being Aunlawfully injured is entitled
to the remedies which the law has al
ways given him. no matter who has
inflicted the injuries. Otherwise, ws-
shall have class legislation unjust in
principle and likely to sap the foun-
dations OF a free government,
Notice and Hearing Before Issue OF In.
Junction.
come now to the question OF mo-
tice before issuing an injunction. It Is
a fundamental rule Of general juris-
prudence thai no man shall be affected
by judicial proceeding without no.
tice and hearing. This rule. however,
the issuing OF temporary restraining
orders commanding defendant In
effect to maintain the status quo UNI
I'll hearing. Such process should
threatened change Of the status quo
would tnflict irreparable injury II time
We're taken to give notice and sum
mary hearing. Tho unlawful Injury
usual IN industrial disputes, such as
l have described. does not become for
midablo except after sufficient time
IN which to give the defendants notice
and "a hearing. I do not meanato say
that there may not be cases even in
Ing order might properly DO issued
without notice. but, generally, ] think
It is aotherwise.I In some State courts
ana u, fewer Federal courts. the prac-
tice OF issuing. temporary restrain
Ing order, without notice merely to
preserve the status quo on the theory
that It won't hurt anybody. has been
too common.
Many Of n,rs,, rs4qII that the
trial disputes. as. for instance, in COR
porate and stock controversies like
those over the Erie Railroad, in which
as s1ey or s without notice was
to the one who secured it. and a COR
responding disadvantage to the one
against whom It was secured, indeed.
eX-parte application are much In
creased over those when hearine is
granted. and there may be circum-
dtan1ss Inder Which The
cGse OF g awful strike. the sending or
a formidable document restraining a
nun Der of defendants from doing a
great many dt Yerent things whichsthe4
!plalntiff4aVers they are threatening to
do often SO discourages men a always
reluctant to so into a strike from
continuing what is their lawful right.
his has made the laboring man feel
That an Injustice Is done In the issuing
Of a writ without notice. Nj
4, conceive that il the treatment Of
citizen ana he leg islator to view the.
subject from X tho standpoint Of the
man who believes himself to be un-
Justly treated as we'll as from that OF
the community ut large. I have sug-
gested the rem dys OF returning in such
cases to the original practice Under tia
old statute Of tho United States and
THE rules In equity adopted by the Sill
preme Court, which did not permit the
Issuing Of an Injunction without no.
tice. In this respect, the Republican
convention has adopted another rem
;edy,a that, without going, so far pron,- &
consideration IN such cases BY, courts,
by formulating into a legislative act
the best present practice, ~
a Under this recommends tion,@a statute
may DO framed which shat define with
considerable partIcularity, and %empha.@
nh