The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1908-07-28
PAGE EIGHT.

before issuing an injunction. 1t is
fundamental rule OF general JufISpru-
dence that no man shall be aIlected
by a judicial proceeding without no
tice and hearing This rule, however,
has sometimes had an exception IN
the issuing of temporary restraining
orders commanding defendant in ef-
feet to maintain the status quo until
a hearing. Such process should is
sue only in rare cases where the
threatened change of the status quo
would inflict irreparable injury IL time
were taken to give notice and a sum-
mary hearing. The unlawful injury
usual in Industrial disputes, such as
have described, does not become for
midable except after sufficient time
I'm which to give the defendants no
Eice and hearing. | do not mean TO
say that there may not be cases even
In industrial disputes where a re-
straining order might properly be is
sued without notice, but, generally, /
think it is otherwise. In some state
courts, and in fewer federal courts,
the practice of issuing a temporary
ly to preserve the status quo on the
theory that it won't hurt anybody, has
been too common. Many OF us recall
that the practice has been pursued
in other than industrial disputes, as
for instance, in corporate and stock
controversies like those over the Erie
railroad, in which stay order with
out notice was regarded as step OF
great advantage to the one who secur-
ed it, and a corresponding disadvant-
age to the one against whom it was
secured. Indeed, the chances of doing
injustice on an ex-parte application
are much increased over those when
a hearing is granted, and there may
be circumstances under which it may
affect the defendant to his detriment.
In the case of a lawful strike. the
sending of formidable document re-
straining a number of defendants
from doing a great many different
things which the plaintiff AYERS they
are threatening to do, often so dis
courages men always reluctant to &C
into strike from continuing what is
their lawful right This has made the
laboring man feel that an injustice is
done in the issuing of writ without
notice. l conceive that in the treat
ment of this question it is the duty OF
the citizen and the legislator to view
the subject from the standpoint of the
man who believes himself to be un
justly treated, as we'll as from that o.
the community at large. l have sug
no Of I'm iT
such cases to the original practice un
der the old statute of the United
States and the rules in equity adopt
ed by the supreme court, which die
not permit the issuing of an injunc
ton without notice. In this respect
the republican convention has adopted
another remedy that. without COINS
SO far, promises to be efficacious IL
securing proper consideration in sucl
cases by courts, by formulating into
legislative act the best present prac
tice.
Under this recommendation, a sta
tute may be framed which shall de
fine with considerable particularly
and emphasize the exceptional chal
acter of the cases in which restrain
ing orders may issue without notice
and which shall also provide tina
when they are issued, they shall ceas
to be operative beyond a short period
during which time notice shall b
served and a hearing had unless tn
defendant desires a postponement G
the hearing. By this provision tn
injustice which has sometimes occur
red by which a preliminary restrain
ing order of widest application ha
been issued without notice, and tn
hearing of the motion for the injun
ton has been fixed weeks and month
after its date. could not recur.
Grounds for Complaint in Courts.
The number of instances in whic
restraining orders without notice
industrial disputes have issued by fe
eral courts is small, and it is urge
that they do not therefore constitu
an evil to be remedied by statutol
amendment. The small number
cases complained of above shows tt
careful manner In which most feder
judges have exercised the jurisdictio
but the belief that such cases al
AuhCiouo hdo bSSu 81 widespread al
has aroused such feeling of injusti,
that more definite specification
procedure to prevent recurrence
them is justified if it can be effect,
without injury to the administratit
Of the law.
With respect to notice, the dem
cratic platform contains no reco1
mendation. It's only Ineligible dc
laration in regard to Injunction sui
Is reiteration of the plank in t
platform of 1896 and 1904 providil
that in prosecutions for contempt
federal courts, where the violation
the order constituting the contem
charged is indirect, l. e., outside of t
presence of the court, there shall
q jury trial.
Attack on Power of Courts.
This provision in the platform
1896 was regarded then as me
dangerous attack upon the power
the courts to enforce their orders a
DEGREES, and it was one of the CHI