New-York tribune., 1908-06-22
WRITS OF INJUNCTION.
Lascyer Says Laso. Needs More Ac-
curate Definition.
To the Editor OF Tho Tribune.

To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: It may be interesting to some OF your read
ers when considering the so-caed anti-injunction
plank In the Republican platform OF 1soS to be told
what are the present rules Of procedure In federal
courts with respect the issuance Of writs of In
junction inasmuch as that plank recommends that
those rules should be accurately dehncd by
statute In respect notice of motions for injunc-
tons 1 therefore venture to make the following
explanation Of that subject:
There is at present federal statute which at
tends to that subject on its face. The statute
of 1898 provided that no writ Of injunction shouio
be granted in any without reasonable previous
notice to the adverse party or his attorney OF the
time and place Of moving for the same (f1rst
Statutes at Large, Chapter q, Section 81 Portions
Of the section which contained that provision were
placed In the Revised Statutes. Revised Statutes,
Sections 716 and 72o) But that provision was
omitted from those statutes and was thereby re-
pealed. Revised Statutes Section $500 But the
Revised Statutes also provided that the supreme
Court shall have power to prescribe, from time 10
time, in any manner not inconsistent with any law
of the United States, the modes of proceeding TO
obtain relief in suits in equity in circuit and dis
trct courts. Revised Statutes Section 917)
In pursuance of this authority, the Supreme Court
has prescribed code of rules and practice for the
courts of equity of the United States Rule oS OF
that provided that special injunctons shall
be granted only upon due notice to the other party
But those equity rules do not explain the difference
between special injunctons and common injunc-
functions may be sometimes granted without notice
OF motions therefor and sometimes not, or whether
they may always be granted without notice
Under these circumstances the federal courts are
likely to resort to the the states in which
they sitting for guidance, and some of the
states provide for injunctions without notice in
some cases. while others prohibit the issuance of
injunctions without notice. Thus 1t has come
about that the practice of the federal courts on
that subject is not uniform throughout the United
States, and every lawyer who understands the
subject at all must agree with the Republican plat
In saying that rules of procedure in the fed
era with respect Of the issuance OF writs Of
injunction, should be accurately defined by
statute" An Illustration OF the confused and
satisfa ctory state Of the law this subject
CURED years ago in my practice in a
in which federal judge in state issued.
without any notice to my client or to myself an
Injunction forbiddng from arguing. and forbid
ding my client from causing to be argued, another
case between other parties in federal court In
another state.
That Injunction issued by one Of the best of
the federal Judges IN accordance with the law as
he understood it. I disobeyed the injunction and
argued the which It enjoined me from arguing,
because in my view OF the law, that kind of
injunction that could lawfully be issued with
out notice. The Judge who issued that injunction
afterward decided that l right that point,
and thereupon entered an order setting aside his
Injunction as of the date which It was issued.
My practice during than thirty years in the
federal courts has convinced me, and think that
all lawyers who understand the subject must like
wise be convinced the issuance of writs OF in
junction by federal courts should be more accu-
rately defined by statute than that subject has
been defined at any time since the enactment Of
the Revised Statutes. in 1874. A II. W.
New York. June IS. 1908.