Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-06
THE ORIGIN OF INJUNC1IONS
VARIOUS USES OF THIS VENEER.
ABLE LEGAL DEVICE.
Outgrowth of Equity-Demands of
the Political Parties-Difference
Between the Platforms.

Frederick Dwight, in the Independent.
The newly adopted platforms of the
Two great political parties contain decla-
rations upon the subject of 'injunctions, -
the republican asserting that the rules
relating to their issuance in federal courts
should be more accurately Defined the
democratic demanding first that they be
not permitted in industrial disputes
when they would not be granted other
wise. and. second, that violations, unless
committed in the presence of the court,
should be triable by jury.
OF course, the matter is primarily a
legal one. But being brought into promi-
nence at this time, 1t becomes of interest
TO all voters to ascertain what the ques-
ton means.
Our system OF law is divided into two
parts, law and equity" injunctions
being among the remedies belonging to
the second branch. The origin of equity
as a system is lost in obscurity. but it
can be said that centuries ago in England
q case would arise occasionally in which
one man would have distinct grievance
against another. but for some reason no
existing court could afford him relief. In
this extremity he would resort to the
king, who would then turn the matter
over to a semi-religious officer known
as the chancellor. the keeper of the
would then investigate. and if the facts
seemed 70 warrant would order the per-
son complained against to do justice to
the petitioner.
In the course of time this occasional
and! iu-defned power crystalIized into
the court of chancery. and it's powers
became known as equity. The object
was and is to supplement the law
courts, affording relief which they are
unable to give The primary tribunal is
"a w II
remedy there il there is one; so to this
day 1t Is an essential allegation in an
action in equity that there Is no ade-
Quate remedy at law.
very simple illustration will serve to
show the difference between the scope
of law and equity as far as we are con-
cerned with 1t now. If there is a fine
tree in front of AS place. and b. his
ncighbor. declares he intends to cut 1t
down because it interferes with his view
y can stand under the tree with a shot
gun or threaten to sue Il for damages at
law If he touches 1t. That is all he can
do And the first is I'm general unlawful
II b thinks the threat means nothing or
believes that the court will say he had a
right to destroy the tree he may proceed
10 cut it down. A sues him in a law
court. it is decided that he has been
damaged to the extent of 500 and the
court directs a public officer the sheriff,
10 get slO0 of BIS and hand 1t to A. If
the sheriff is unable to find any money
VI olHeT property OF Is TIE court Is heIp-
less. II has done all that ii could Be
sides, even If he did find enough, 4
does not want his neighbours money. He
wants the tree which had stood for more
than generation before his house.
Need Of Preventive
In other words, in such a case the rem
edy offered by law is wholly inadequate.
A preventive Is needed. Such a procedure
as a private armed guard is usually not
countenanced in civilized communities.
What is the next best thing? 1t Is a
resort to a court of equity which will is
sue an order. called an injunction. COM
handing b TO keep his hands of the tree
under pain of punishment. In other words
1t substitutes the threat of powerful
court for AS personal warning. That Is
all ii does. a court of equity has no way
of compelling Il to obey the injunction. If
he chooses to disregard the warning he is
at liberty to do But in that event he
10 subjecting himself to a double liability.
A may still sue him for damages at law