The Charles Mix new era. (Wagner, Charles Mix County, S.D.) 1???-1911, 1908-08-07

otAses says that the injunction 10 a rem
70 protect propsrty or rights Of = Pc
70 the considerable tunx ment Of all iaymen
whstsay the right OF q man In his bust
-. , NOT - distinctly . right OF a Pc
- his house or the stock Of goe1s on hi.
SHELF. and the instances In which sniuncs
tions 70 protect buSsnesa have been upnela
q A. eeur.a are g many this, Il u futile
IL - difficult TO tell the meaning at tbs
6smocratc platform upon this subject. II
arisen especially Ia connection with In.
duetrisi AtsputcAs We deem that tn.
parties TO all judicial proceedings should
injunctsons should not be issaed In ANY
cases In which sntu1ctions would not issue
u no Industrial dispute were Involved
The declaration = dissnEsnloss. II ses ms
70 have been loosely drawn with the par.
pose Of rendering II sssce pfihle 10 orr
Interpretations b. one set OF men ard ~
= dramatically opposite Interpretation b.
should net issue In Industrial Disputes. bat
only that they should mot lssue because
they are Industrial dispusss. and yst Those
r@sponsshle for the declaration must have
known that no one ever maintained thaf
ths fact that q dispute Was Industrial gava
Any basis for issuing An injunction Ia
references ther~t The declaration we~rrs
% 3 drawn In its present vague ARD
1890 ~ 1880 tT1B4t
that Il 10 q declaration against the issue
Cf ~in3unctfona In any Industrial dsspusv.
while ~ the same time 1; nay - possible
who objects to class distinctions that 10
such Intention exists. Our position ~
clear ard uneauivccAl We are anaksas
= prevent sven ar apssarAnes q IN
hot In the spirit OF savori;Am TO any sst
1t our fellow citizens. hut In the interest
q Justice 10 all The reason fer sxer.
80 -. A --aA
Of injunction must he found I'm the rhaY,
actaS Of the unlawful injury ard not In
the character or class OF the persons whe
inqiot the injury:
being unAwfuily injured IL entitled 10
the remedies which the law has always
gwen him. no matter who has s~nsllcfs~.
the injuries. Otherwise we shall have
class legislation unjust In principle and
likely TO sap the foundations of a free
government
Issue ~ Injunction.
come now to the question Of notice
before issuing an Injunction. II t. a
fu~ndanental rule q xensr~i jarisprudense
c1al proceeding without notice and hear
tng. This rule, however. has sometimes
had m exception In the issuinE Of tenn
defendant In eject to maintain the status
quo until q hearing. Such a process
should Issue only In rare cases where the
Threatened change Of the status quo would
were taken 70 give notice and . summary
hearing. Tho nv ful injury usuai In
Industrial disputes, such AZ l have de-
cspt after sufficient time In which TO give
b defendants notice ard a hearing. !
DO not mean 10 say that there may not
b cases even In Industrial disputes where
q restraining order might properly be-
issued without notice. but generally !
think II r. otherwtse. In come state
courts. and in fewer federal courts. the
l RneSs order o. r ,.su,ns n = .sap merely rs ~ prs.
serve tho status quo on the theory that
IL won't hurt anybody has been too COM
mon Many OF us recall that the practice
has been pursued IN other than indus
trial dispu,ea ~. for Instance. IN cor
poratc 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 II and q corresponding dssad-
vantage to the one against whom IL was
secured. Indeed. the chances Of dolng
much increased over these when a hear
ing IL granted. and there may be circuu-
stances under which IL may affect the
defendant 70 his dstriment. In the case
Of a lawful etrike the sending Of q for
midabis document restraining q number
of defendants from doing a great many
difersnt things which the plaintiff AYERS
they are threatening TO do. often 10 dts
eourAgcs men always reluctant 10 60 into
A strike from continuing what Ia their
lawful right. This has made the Iabcr~
lng man feel that an injustice Ia done
In tho Issuing OF a writ without notice.
! conceive that In the treatment Of this
question II IL the duty OF the citizen and
the legislator 20 view the subject from the
standpoint OF tn. man who believed him
self to be untustiy treated. as well A.
from that OF the community at large I
have eugge the remedy os RETURNING
In such cases to the original practice IN
lar IN AZ ~ Tia 80 - "a
and the rules In equity adopted by this
supreme court. which did not permit the
lssuinx Of an injunction without notice,
In this respect the republican convention
has adopted another remedy that. with
out going so far. promises TO be effiea
ciouS In securing proper consideration if
such cases by courts. by formulating inta
a legislative act the best present pfat.
Under this recommendation a statute
may be framed which shall define With
eonsderable particularfsy and emphasis
he exceptional character of the eases Ia
which restraining orders may issue WITH
3Gt notice, and which shah also provitt
hat e they are Issued they cha
ease - be operative beyond a short
period. during which time notice shall be
erved and a hearing had. naless the De
fandanf desires a postpcnement of she
caring. BY this provision the in1astie.
which has sometimes occurred by whlGgs
a preliminary restraining order OF wfdee
DUPLICATION has been Issued without nos
fice and the hearing OF the motion for
the Injunction has been fixed weeks ans
tnontha after its date could mot reeur.
The number OF instances in which ~
training orders without notice In In.
austrtAl di1putes have issued by fedora
courA ID small, and IL Is urged that they
10 not Therefore constitute IN error s9
% ned by statutory amendment
The email number OF cases complained
" above shows the careful manner tn
which moet federal judges have exercised
he jurisdiction. but the belief that snea
asses are numerous has been so wide
spr.Ad and has aroused such feeling Of
INJUSTICE that mere definite specification
IN procedure TO prevent recurrence of
hem = justified III II can be effected with
OUT injury to tho administration Of the
law.
With respect TO notice the democratic
platform contains no recommendation. ItS
only ineligible declaration la regard -
Injunction suits II q rstt~rasfou of the
plank In the platforms Of isS and 1904
providing that In prosecutions for con
fempt In federal courts. where the viola
lion u the order constituting the conieupt
charged u Indirect. |. G.. outside Of shs
prsesnce Ut the court. there shall he a
Jury trial.
This pSovision In the platform u isss
vas regarded then AZ q most dangeroue
attack upon the power Of the courts t.
enforce their orders and DEGREES, ard II
waa onA Of the chief reasons for tbs
isfeat Of the democrats In that contest.
AZ II vi 20 have been. The extended
1serafion OF such . provision to weaken
he power OF the courts In the enforce
ment of IL lawful orders can hardly be