The Montgomery advertiser., 1908-07-29
tcens,nuea sren .rs. E,Eht1

t while. and all of which would require suries of this class have since the 3oundafion of courts of equity been prevented by injunction.
 Ik has been claimed that inyuncucnss do not issue to protect anything but Property rights. and that business IS not property right; but such prop osftion Is wholly inconsistent witn Supreme Court of the United states says that the injunction is remedy 7 to protect property or rights or a pecuniary nature. ana we ,nas may vel of ali Iaymen whether the right or a man in his business is not as dlstlnct- ly a right of a pecuniary nature as fie stock of goods On his si~'lE and the instances In which injun. .tons to protect business have been upneld py all courts are s0 % many ,na that nrdnosition e s5
 It fs difficult to tell the meaning or the Democratic platform upon this suo- Ject. It says.
 arisen especially in connection with industrial disputes. We deem that the parties to all judicial proceedings ity. and that injunctions should not be Issued in any eases in which in- functions would not issue if no tn- dustrial dispute were involved"
  seerns to have been loosely drawn with the especial purpose of rendering 1t susceptible to one interpretation by one set of men and to a diametrically does not aver Nhat injunctions should not issue In industrial disputes. but only that they should not issue mere ly because they are industrial dis putes. and vet those responsible for the declaration must have known that no one has ever maintained that the fact that . dispute was industrial ton in reference thereto.
 The declaration seems to be drawn in its present vague and ambiguous pie that 1t is a declaration against the issuing of injunctions in any in- dnstrial dispute. while at the same time 1t may be possible to explain to the average plain citizen who objects to class distinctions that no such in- fention exists at all. Our position is clear and uneduivocai. We are anx- any injustice to labor in the Issuance of injuncttons. not in spirit Of fa- voritism to one set Of our fellow citi-. gems. but of justice to all of our fel- low citizens The reason for exercts- ing 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 infiict this injury
 The man who has business which is being unlawfulfy injured Is entitled to the remedies which the law has al- ways given him. no matter who has inflicted the injuries Otherwise, we shall have class legislation unjust in principle and likely to sap the foun- dations of free government
 Notice And Hearing Before Issue Of
 Injunction.
 come now to the question of notice before issuing an injunction. It is Fundamental rule of general jurispru- dence that no man shall be affected by a Judicial proceeding without notice and hearing This rule, however. has sometimes had an exception in the is- suing of temporary restraining orders commanding a defendant In effect to maintain the status quo until hear ing. Such process should issue only in rare cases where the threatened change of the status quo would inflict 1rreparable injury if time were taken to give notice and a summary hearing. The unlawful injury usual in indus trial dtaputess such as I have described. does not become formidable except after sufficient time in which to give the defendants notice and a hearing. I do not mean to say that there may not be caseg even in industrial disputes where a restraining order might properly be issued without notice, but,