Omaha daily bee., 1908-07-29
minee for President Expounds Platform Progress and Prosperity His Pledge

OF equity to enjoin in such cases arises
from the character Of the injury and the
method OF inflictihg IL and the fact that
'uit for damages offers no adequate
cmedy The unlawful injury Is not usually
me py one single act. which might be
~ a suit at law. but II is the result ~ A
constantly recurring series OF acts, each Of
which IN Itself might not constitute a sub
stsntial injury or make a suit at law worth
whiie. and all Of which would require a
multiplicity Of suits at law. Injuries of
this class have since the foundation of
ton.
It has been claimed that inJuuctions do
not issue 70 protect anything hut property
rights, and that business is not a property
rleht; but such a proposition is wholly in
consistem with all the decisions Of the
courts. The supreme court OF the United
states says that the injunction is a remedy
10 protect property rights OF a pecunlarN
nature, and we may well submit to the
considerable Judgment OF all laymen whether
the right Of a man in his business is rot
as distinctly a right OF a pccuniary nature
as the right to his horse or his house or
me stock OF goods on his shelf; and the
instances in which injunctions to protect
business have been upheld by all courts are
SO many that II Is futile further TO discuss
It is difficult to tell the meaning OF the
democratic platform upon this subject. 1t
Questions Of judicial practice have arisen
especially In connection with Industrial dis.
putes. We deem that the parties to all
judicial proceedings should be treated with
rigid impartiallty. and that injunctions
should not be issued in any cases in which
inJunctions would not Issue, II no industrial
dispute were involved"
This declaration is d~isingenuous. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering IL sus-
ceptible to one Interpretation by one set
Oh men and to a Numerically opposite in
depreciation by another. 1t does not aver
that injunctions should not issue in indus
trial disputes, but only that they should
not issue merely because they are Industrial
disputes, and yet those responsible for the
declaration must have known that no one
has ever maintained that the fact that a
dispute was Industrial gave any basis for
issuing an injunction in reference thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn In It's
present vague and ambiguous shape in erder
70 persuade some people that II is a deciara-
ton against the Issuing of injunctions in
any Industrial dispute, while at the same
time 1t may be possible to explain to the
average plain citizen who objects to class
at all. Our position Is clear ard unequi
vocal. We are anxious to prevent even an
appearance of any injustice to labor in the
issuance of injunctiors, not in a spirit OF
tavoritism to one set of our fellow citizens,
but of justice to all Of our fellow citizens.
The reason for exercising or refusing to eX-
ercise the power of injunction must be
four1d in the character of the unlawful in
jury and not In the character or class OF
the persons who inflict this INJURY.
The man who has a business which is
being unlawfully injured is entitled to the
remedies which the law has always given
him, no matter who has inflicted the in
turies. Otherwise, We shall have class leg
islation unjust in principle and likely to
sap the foundations of a free government.
Notice of Hearing Before Injunction.
l come row to the question of notice be-
fore Issuing an injunction. 1t is a funda-
mental rule Of general jurisprudence that
no man shall be affected by a judicial pro-
ceedirg without notice and hearing. This
rule, however, has sometimes had an eX-
ception In the issuing of temporary re-
straining 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 ir-
reparable injury II time were taken to give
notice and a'summaTy hearing. The unlaw-
full injury in industrial disputes, such as l
have described does not become formidable
except after sufficient time in which to
give the defendant notice and a hearing. l
do rot mean to say that there may not be
cases even in industrial disputes where a
restraining order might properly be issued
without notice, but, generally, | think II
is otherwise. In some state courts, and in
fewer federal courts, the practice of issu-
ing a temporary restraining order without
notice merely 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 c0rporates Hnd stock controversies IKE
those over the Erie railroad, in which a
stay order without notice was regarded as
a step Of great advantage 10 the one who
secured IL, and a correspondent dlSauNdn-
tage to the ore against whom II was Sc
cured. Indeed, the chances of doing injus-
tice on an ex-parte application are much
Increased over those when a hearing Is
granted, and there may be circumstances
urder which 1t may affect the defendant
to his detriment. In a case OF a lawful
strike, tie sending of a formidable docu-
ment restraining a number OF defendants
from doing a great many different thlEgs
which the plaintiff ayers they are threaten
ing TO do, often so discourages men always
reluctant to go into a strike from contn-
uing what il their lawful right. This has
made the laborirJg man feel that an inJuc-
tice is done in the issuing of a writ without
notice. ! conceive that In the treatment OF
this question, it is the duty of the citizen
AM the legislator to view the subject from
the standpoint of the man who believes
himself to be uEjustly treated, as well as
from that of the community at large. l
have suggested the remedy or returning
in such cases to the original practice under
the old statute of the United states ana
Nh niles in equity adopted by the supreme
court, which did not permit the Issuing OF
an injunctiop' without notice. In this re-
spect, the republican convention mas
adopted another remedy that, without go
ing so far, promises TO be etflcacious IN
securing proper consideration in such cases
by cours by formulating into a legislative
act the best present practice.
Under this recommendation, u statute
may be framed which shall define with
considerable particularly, and emphasize
tile exceptional character Of the cases IN
which retraiuing orders may issue without
notice, and which shall also provide tudt
4 when they are ISSUED, lleS o.lhll cease 4
be operative beyond a short period, during
which time notice shall be served and a
hearing had unless the defendant desires
a pOstponement of the hearing. By this
provision the injustice which has some
times occurred by which a preliminary
restraining order of widest application has
been issued without notice, and the hear
ing of the motion for the injunction has
been fixed weeks and months after It's
date, could not recur.
small Number of Cases in Federal
Court.
The number OF instances in which
restraining orders without notice is in
duStrial disputes have issued by federal
courts is small, and II is urged that they
do not therefore constitute an evil TO he
remedied by statutory amendment. The
small number 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 widespread and
has aroused such feeling of injustice that
more definite specification in procedure TO
prevent recurrence of them is justified II
IL can be effected without injury to the
administration Of the law.
With respect 10 notice, the democratic
platform contains no recommendation. Its
only Ineligible declaration in regard to
Injunction suits is a reiteratiOn of the
plank in the platform Of 1884, and 1904 pro-
viding that IN prosecutions for contempt
in federal courts, where the violation Of