The Greenville journal. [volume] (Greenville, Ohio) 1850-1918, 1908-01-23
stood, the better for them. and for the
public.
Hearlnu Before ar InIunetIon.

stood, the better for them. and for the
public
Hearing Before ar injunction.
Second-You ask me what think Of
provision that no restraining order or in
junction shall issue, except after notice
TO the defendant and hearing had.
This was the rule under the federal stat
utes for many years. but 1t was subse.
qucntly abolished. In the class Of cases
10 which you refer. do not see any OBJ
lection to the re-enactment of that fed
eral statute. Indeed, have taken OccI-
sion to say in public speeches, that the
power to issue injunctions ex paTte has
given rise T. certain abuses and injGa
tice TO the laborers engaged in a peace
able strike. Men leave employ ment ON a
strike; counsel for the employer applies
to judge and presents an affidavit
averng fear of threatened violence and
making such case ON the eX parts
statement that the Judge feels called
upon to issue a temporary restraining
order. The temporary restraining order
is served on all the strikers; they are not
lawyers; their fears are aroused by the
process with which they are not ac-
quainted; ard. although their purpose
may have been entirey lawful, their
common determination to carry through
the strike il weakened by an order which
they never have had an opportunity to
question, and which is calculated to dlS-
courage their proceeding In their original
purpose To avoid this injustice. | be-
lieve, as | have already said, that the
federal statute might well be made what
it was originally. requiring notice and a
hearing before an injunction issues.
Third-In answer to your third ques-
ton it would seem that II is unneces-
sary to impo" any Limitation as to the
time for final hearing, If, before an In
junction can issue at all, notice and
hearing must be given. The third ques-
tiOn is relavent and proper, only should
the power Of issuing ex parte injunc-
tions be retained in the court. In such
case, | should think it eminently proper
that the statute should require the court
issuing an eX parte injunction, to give
the person against whom the injunction
was issued an opportunity to have
hearing thereon within very short
space of time, not to exceed, | should
say. three o. four days.
Might designate Another Judge.
Fourth-Your fourth query is. in effect
what would think of provision in
such cases by which the contemnor-
that is the person charged with the
violation Of an order OF injunction
might ob5sct to the judge who issued the
Injunction. as the one to try the issue,
whether the injunction had been violated,
and to fix punishment In case OF convic-
tion, and thereby require another judge
to try the issue and impose sentence. If
necessary In federal courts in such q
case 1t would be proper to provide that
the senior circuit judge Of the circuit
should, upon the application of the de-
fendant, or contemnor, designate another
district or circuit judge to sit and hear
the issue presented. | do not think such
a restriction would be unreasonable. In
most cases it would be unnecessary. But
l admit that there Is popular feeling
that In contempt proceedings. and the
very name of the proceeding suggests 1t,
that the judge issuing the injunction has
a personal senstiveness in respect to its
violation, and therefore that he does not
bring to the trial of the issue presented
by the charge of contempt of his order
the calm judicial mind which insures
justice
Opposes Jury Intervention.
l think that this popular feeling is
in most cases. unfounded, but believe
that it is better where it can be done
without injurng the authority of the
court and the efficiency of its process,
to grant such a privilege to the contem-
nor and thlS avoid an appearance of
injustice, even at some inconvenience in
the matter of securing another Judge
There is some analogy, though 1t II not
complete, between the exclusion of a
judge from sitting In the court of ap-
pealS to review decision of his own,
which now obtains in the practice Of the
federal court of appeals, by statute, and
the present suggested case. 1t Is of the
highest Importance that the authority of
the court to enforce Is own orders effec-
lively should not be weakened, and
therefore l am opposed to the interven-
ton of jury between the courts decree
and its enforcement by contempt pro-
ceedings. 1t would mean long delay and
greatly weaken the authority Of the
court.
do not think that the permission to
change the Judge, however, would con-
stitute either serious delay or injur0 the
efficacy of the order, while it may secure
greater public confidence In the justice Of
the courts action. The appearance of
justice is almost as important az the ex-
istence of 1t in lne administration Of
courts.
Sincerely yours,
VIM. H. TAFT.
Llewslyn Lewis ESQ.,. Martins Ferry. o.