The Kennewick courier. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1905-1914, 1908-08-21

rying on what Is sometimes known as
a secondary boycott against his Gus
toners or those with whom he deals.
1t has been claimed that injunctions
do not issue to protect anything but
property rights. and that business is
not property right; but such propo-
sition is wholly inconsistent with all
the decisions of the courts. The Su-
preme Court Of the United States says
that the injunction is a remedy to pro-
tect property or rights Of a pecuniary
nature, and we may well submit to the
considerate judgment of all laymen
whether the right of a man In his bust
ness is not as distinctly right of
pecun1ary nature as the right to his
horse or his house or the stock of goods
on his shelf: and the instances in
which injunctions to protect business
have been upheld by all courts are SO
many that it is futile further to discuss
the proposition.
1t Is difficult to tell the meaning Of
the Democratic platform upon this sub
ject. 1t says:
Questions of judicial practice have
arisen especially in connection with in
dustrial disputes. We deem that the
parties to all judicial proceedings
should be treated with rigid impartial
ity. and that injunctions should not be
issued in any cases in which injunc-
lions would not issue If no industrial
dispute were involved"
This declaration is disingenuous. 1t
seems to have been loosely drawn with
the especial purpose of rendering it
susceptible to one interpreted ton by one
set of men and to Numerically oppo-
site Interpretation by another. 1t does
not aver that injunctionS should not
issue in industrial disputes. but only
that they should not issue merely be
cause they are industrial disputes. and
yet those responsible for the declara-
ton must have known that no one has
ever maintained. that the fact that
dispute was Industrial gave any basis
for issuing an injunction in reference
thereto.
The declaration seems to be drawn in
Its present vague and ambiguous shape
in order to persuade some people that ii
IL declaration against the issuing of
injunctionS In any Industrial dispute,
while at the same time it may be pos
s!ble TO explain to the average plain
citizen who objects to class distinctions
that no such intention exists at all.
Our position is clear and unequivocal.
We are anxious to prevent even an ap-
pearance of any injustice to labor in
the issuan,e Of injunctions. not in a
spirit of favOritism to one set of our
fellow citizens. but Of justice to all of
our fellow citizens The reason for ex-
ercising 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 infict this injury.
The man who has a business which
Is being unlawfuily injured is entitled
to the remedies which the law has al
ways given him, no matter who has i'll
fiicted the injuries. Otherwise. we
shall have class legislation unjust IN
principle and likely to sap the founda
dOns Of q free government.
Notice and Hearing Before Issue Of
Injunction.
come now to the question Of no.
tiee before issuing an init action 1t is
q fundamental rule of general jar B.
prudence that no man shall be affected
by judicial proceeding without notice
and hearing. This rule. however, has
sometimes had an exception in the is
suing Of temporary restraining orders
commanding defendant in effect 10
maintain the status quo until a hear
ing. Such a process should issue Only
In rare cases where the threatened
change OF the status quo would in1ict
1rreparable injury If time were taken
to give notice and summary hearing.
The unlawful injury usual In INDUS
trial disputes, such as ! have describ-
ed, does not become formidable except
after sufficient time in which to give
the defendants notice and hearing
] do not mean to say that there may
not be cases even in industrial dis
putes where a restraining order might
properly be issued without notice, but.
generally, / think it Is otherwise. In
some State courts, and in fewer Fed
eral courts, the practice of issuing a
temporary restraining order without
notice merely to preserve the status Gno
on the theory that 1t won't hurt any
body, has been too common. Many Of
us recall that the practice has been
pursued in other than Industrial dis
putes, as, for instance, in corporate
and stock controversies like those over
the Erie railroad, in which stay or
der without notice was regarded as 4
step Of great advantage to the one who
secured it, and corresponding disad-
vantage to the one against whom it
was secured. Indeed. the chances Of
doing injustice on an ex-parte appica-
ton are much increased over those
when hearing is granted, and there
may be circumstances under which it
may affect the defendant to his detri-
ment. In the case of a lawful strike.
the sending of formidable document
restraining q number Of defendants
from doing a great many different
things which the plaintiff AYERS they
are threatening to do, often so dis
oo.,o ~poe v,,an olu,ovS tn