New-York tribune., 1908-06-23
THE INJUNCTION PLANK.

Mr. BRYAN has not taken the pains 10 reau up
on the statutes regarding the issue OF 1nJuhc
tions or he would not have made the statement
that the Injunction plank in the Republican
platform meant the continuance of the law uil-
changed. IF the convention had been frank. he
saws. .in the statement of its position it would
have quoted the present statute and said that 1t
WAS in favor of enforcing the law just as 1t is
As The law is now there is not any federal stat
ute prescribing procedure in such cases Inc
Republican platform calls for the passing OF
such a statute will establish uniform prac-
tice and will restrict the issue of injunctionS
without notice to- the party enioined to cases
Of exceptional urgency.
The letter of correspondent printed in The
Tribune of yesterday explains in detail the
present state of the law upon injunctions and
shows clearly enough why there Is need OF
legislation regulating the issue of the writ. The
original statute of 1893 provided that no writ
of Injunction should be granted without pre-
vious notice to the person enjoned. but that
provision was dropped out of the revised stat
MES leaving il TO the Supreme Court TO estab-
lsh rules of procedure in such cases. The Su-
preme Court laid down the rule that no special
Injunction" should issue without due notice. but
the distinction between special and common in
functions was not made clear, with the result
that the practice of different circuits has varied,
some giving notice before granting .njunctons
and others not. and there has been tendency
of federal courts 10 conform 10 the laws of the
various states where they sat giving notice
where the state law required it and otherwise
not.
The Republican platform calls for the estab-
lishment by statute of a uniform practice Of
giving notice before the issue of an injunction
unless the delay incident to the granting of such
notice would result in irreparable damage to
the petitioner Such statute would work q
desirable reform in judicial procedure. for it IS
in accordance with the principles of justice that
notice and hearing should precede the issue
of an injunction wherever possible and unless
the delay required for them would defeat the
purpose of the Injunction Such law
would prevent the abuse of the writ which
proceeds from its issue upon er pdrte state
ments. while at the same time it would not i'm
pair its effectiveness to prevent irreparable
damage 1t would he fair alike to rich and
poor 10 labor organizations and 10 employers,
not favoring any interest above any other. The
Republican plank is not. Mr. Bryan says. a
fraud and a sham. pretending 10 do something
while il really does nothing. but 1t proposes
definite measure of reform in the use of in
functions and one which will commend itself to
the public sense of justice. 1t strikes at the
real possibility OF abuse in the present unreg-
ulate1 lfacllce IN Cnelf uSe-nalneN. the
power of temporarily interfering with the rights
or liberties of the parties enjoined on a mere
or pGyte statement, while it leaves the writ
with all its prompt effectiveness in extraord-
nary situations. 1t does not, as Mr.. Bryan
charges, leave the situation unchanged. nor
does it 20 to the revolutionary extent that he
and his ally. Mr.. Gompers a mere matter Of
political opposition, loudly demand that it
should by creating a privileged class exempt
from iniunctons.
Mr.. Bryan and Mr. Gompers would forbid
the use of the injunction writ to protect
property and property rights in labor disputes.
They are not concerned over general reform
in the use Of this remedy. ending its possible
abuse without regard TO whom that abuse af-
fects They would leave the procedure it Is,
except where labor is involved. and there they
would deny the courts the authority TO issue
iniunctions. The difference between the Repub
Iican and the Democratic position on this issue
is this: The Republicans would end the abuse
of the writ wherever ii occurs; the Democrats
would leave its abuse unremeded in all the
infinite variety of cases to which the remedy Is
applied save only in labor cases. and in labor
cases they would wipe out both its use and its
abuse at once. The one position is justice, and
the other is demagogy.