Devils Lake inter-ocean and Devils Lake free press. (Devils Lake, Ramsey County, N.D.) 1905-1909, 1908-07-31

a fundamental rule Of general juris-
prudence that no man shall be affected
by judicial proceeding without notice
and hearing This rule, however, has
sometimes had an exception in the is
suing Of temporary restraining orders
commanding a defendant in effect to
maintain the stdtus quo until a. hear
ing. Such process should issue only
In rare cases where the threatened
change OF the status quo would infict
irreparable injury If time were taken
to give notice and a summary hearing.
The unlawful injury usual tn indus
trial disputes, such as l have describ-
ed, does not become formidable except
after sufficient time In which to give
the defendants notice and a hearing
Il do not mean to say that there may
mot be cases even In Industrial dis
Eputes where a restraining order might
Properly be issued without notice, but
generally, think it Is otherwise. In
some State courts, and In fewer Fed
eral courts, the practice Of issuing a
temporary restraining order without
notice merely to preserve the statsts gao
on the theory that it won't hurt any
body, has been too common. Many Of
us recall that the practice has been
pursued in other than Industrial dis
putes, as, for instance, In corporate
and stock controversies like those over
the Erie railroad, In which stay or
| mi
step Of great advantage to the one who
secured 1t, and corresponding disad-
vantage to the one against whom it
was secured. Indeed. the chances Of
doing injustice on an ex-parte applica-
ton are much increased over those
when hearing is granted, and there
may be circumstances under which it
may affect the defendant to his detri-
ment. In the case of lawful strike
+ the sending Of formidable document
restraining number Of defendants
from doing a great many different
i things which the plaintiff AYERS they
are threatening to do, often so dis
! courages men always reluctant to go
into strike from continuing what is
their lawful right. This has made the
labortng man feel that an injustice Is
done in the issuing Of writ without
notice. l conceive that In the treat
ment Of this question 1t Is the duty
Of the citizen and the legislator to
view the subject from the standpoint
Of the man who believes himself to be
unjustly treated, as well as from that
Of the community at large. have
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, without going
SO far. promises to be etficacious
Effect Of Jury Trial.
! Under such provision a recalcitrant
witness who refuses to obey suhpoe
ma may insist on a jury trial before the
court cali determine that he received
the subpoena. citizen summoned as
juror and refusing to obey the writ
when brought Into court uslEss lie tried
by another jury to determA, whether
he got the summons Such 4 Drovis ion
applies not alone to injunctiDrs. but to
every order which the court issues
against persons. A suit may be tried
, IN the court Of first instance and car
ried to the Court OF Appeals. and thenc..
to the Supreme Court. and Judgment
and decree entered and an order is
sued, and then II the decree involves
the defendants doing anything or NOT
doing anything, and he disobeys it. the
plaintiff who has pursued his remedies
In lawful course for years must, to Sc
cure his rights, undergo the uncertain
ties and the delays Of IL jury trial bt-
fore he can enjoy that which is his
right by the decision of the highest
court Of the land. say without hest
tation that such q change will greatly
impair the Indispensable power and
authority Of the rnu":> Securing to
the public the benefits Of the new stat
utes enacted in the present Admins
; tratton. the ultimate inssrumentality to
~ A~ooA eSN w ~ tAS \Ottl - OI Tue InlC
| ed States. If now their authority Ia to
be weakened In manner never known
In the history Of the Jurisprudence Of
England or America. except In the con-
stitution Of Oklahoma. how can we ex-
:, pect. that such statutes will have eff
Client enforcement? Those who advo-
cate this Intervention Of Jury In such
cases seem to suppose that this change
In some way will inure only to the ben
eft of the poor workingman. As a
matter Of fact, the person who will Sc
cure chief advantage from it is the
wealthy and INSCRIPTIONS defendant,
able to employ astute and cunning
counsel and anxious to avoid justice.
The administration OF justice lies at
the foundation Of government. The
maintenance of the authority of the
courts Is essential unless we are pre-.
pared: to embrace anarchy. Never in
: the history Of the country has there
been such an insidious attack upon the
judicial system as the proposal to inter.
ject a jury trial between all orders OF
! the court made affav tfr1l hoo rsr, ~ "a :, 4