The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-29

that the injunction is remedy to pr lect property or rights of a pecunia naturei and we may we'll submit to t considerate judgment of all laym whether the right of man In his bus niess is not as distinctly right
 a pecuniary nature as the right to h horse or his house or the stock of goo on his shelf; and the instances in whi( injunctions to protect business ha] been upheld by all courts are so mar that 1t is futile further to discuss u proposition.
 It Is difficult to tell the meaning the democratic platform upon this sul ject, It says:
 Questions of judicial practice haN arisen especially in connection with in dustrlal disputes, We deem that tn parties to all judicial proceeding should be treated with rigid impartia ity, and that injunctions should not b Issued in any cases In which injund tions would not issue If no industrid "'Sputo WtIt llNOlNtu,
 This declaration is disingenuous. seems to have been loosely drawn wit the especial purpose of rendering susceptible to one interpretation by on set of men and to diametrically oppo site interpretation by another. It doe not aver that injunctions should no issue in industrial disputes, but onl{ that they should not issue merely be cause they are industrial disputes, an yet those responsible for the declara ton must have known that no one ha ever maintained that the fact that { dispute was industrial gave any basil for issuing an injunction fin referenc{ thereto. | The declaration seems to be drawn iY| It's present vague and ambiguous shap4 in order to persuade some people that 1t Is a declaration against the Issuing of injunctlons in any industrial disputeI while at the same time 1t may be posi- sible to explain to the average plain citizen who objects to class distlnctiond that no such intention exists at all Our position Is clear and unequivocal We are anxious to prevent even an ap- pearance of any injustice to labor in the issuance of injunctions, not in a spirit of favoritism to one set of our fellow citizens, but of justice to all of our fellow citizens. The reason for ex- ercising or refusing to exercise the power of injunction must be found in the character of the unlawful injury and not In the character or class of the persons who inflict this injury.
 The man who has business which Is being unlawfully injured Is entitled to the remedies which the law has al- ways given him, no matter who has in. fiicted the injuries. Otherwise, we shall have class legislation unjust in prin' ciple and likely to sap the foundations of a free government.
 Notice and Hearing Before Issue ol
 Injunction.
 come now to the question of notice before issuing an injunction. It is s fundamental rule of general jurisprud ence that no man shall be affected by judicial proceeding without notice and hearing. This rule, however. hal sometimes had an exception in the is suing of temporary restraining orders commanding a defendant in effect t maintain the status quo until a hear ing. Such process should issue onl! in rare cases where the threatened change of the status quo would inflict irreparable injury If time were taken to give notice and a summary hearing The unlawful injury usual in industrial disputes, such as I have described does not become formidable except after suf ficient time in which to give the de- fendants notice and a hearing. I dc not mean to say that there may not be cases even in industrial disputes where restraining order might prop erly be issued without notice. but, gen. erally, think 1t Is otherwise. In some state courts, and in fewer federa courts, the practice of issuing tenn porary restraining order without notice merely to preserve the status quo or the theory that 1t won't hurt anybody has been too common. Many of us re- call 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 a stay order without notice was regarded as a step of great advantage to the one who secured 1t, and a corresponding disadvantage tt the one against whom 1t was secured Indeed, the chances of doing injustice on an ex-parte application are much increased over those when 8 hearing Is granted, and there may be clrcum- stances under which It may affect the defendant to his detriment. In the case of a lawful strike, the sending of a formidable document restraining a number of defendants from doing g great many different things which the plaintiff ayers they are threatening tc do, often so dlscourages men alwaya reluctant to go into a strike from con- tinuing what Is their lawful right. This has made the laboring man feel that ar injustice is done in the Issuing of 6 writ without notice. I conceive that in the treatment of this question 1t k the duty of the citizen and the legisla- tor to view the subject from the stand ro.nt of the nlAl whI believes nimsel to be unjustly treated, as well as from that of the community at large I have s, egested the remedy of returning ir such cases to the original practice un der the old statute of the United StatcI and the rules m equity adopted by th' Supreme court, which did not permit the issuing of an injunction without notice In this respect, the republican convention has adopted another reme. dy, that, without going so far prom lses to be efflcacious in securing prop CT consideration in such cases bS courts, by formulating into leglsla I've act the best present practice
 l