Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-09-06

This order had been provoked by the
friShtful confusion caused by the unions
attempts to prevent the operation of all
roads using Pullman Company cars, with
which company the unions were quarrel
ing. Debs and other labor leaders were
afterward arrested for contempt of
court in disregarding this injunction
and sentenced to brief terms in Jail. Be
fore the Supreme Court. the counsel for
the accused men employed. as one argu-
ment for canceling the injunction. the
curious suggestion that the United States
government had power to order out
troops to prevent any disorder and that
was enough. The equity court, they said.
should not be permitted in addition to
issue orders. The prompt reply to this
was that while the government might.
indeed. have met violence with bullets
and bloodshed, 1t was certainly far more
civilized and humane to bring about the
same results, if possible merelS by the
issuance Of a paper signed by court of
equity. AS to the effectiveness of the
procedure as compared with a resort to
force, the following evidence may be
given without further comment. 1t is
quoted by the court in the Debs case,
from the testimony of one of the strike
leaders before the United States strike
commission in 1894: LAS soon as the
employees found that we were arrested
and taken from the scene of action" he
said. "they became demoralized and that
ended the strike. 1t was not the soldiers
that ended the strike. 1t was not the old
brotherhoods that ended the strike. 1t
was simply the United States courts that
ended the strike.'
Generally speaking. then. at the pres
ent time United States courts in indus
trial disputes" or strikes WILL under
proper circumstances, issue injanctions
forbidding (a) acts of violence by the
strikers which injure or threaten to in
jure property belonging to those against
whom tine strike is directed: and OBJ as
semblages of the strikers when they are
held, not for the purpose of helping one
another but to injure their former en-
ployers or intimidate the workmen
The Platforms.
We may now consider briefly the
changes proposed by the two parties in
the scope Of this power.
The republican platform advocates a
more accurate definition of the circum-
stances under which courts of equity may
grant injunctions. AT present there are
practically only two rules for the guild
ance Of the court. A person who asks
for an injunction against some one else
must show that the other is threatening
to injure his property, and also, as was
said in the beginning, that even if he re-
covered damages at law after the injuries
he would not be fairly compensated. Be-
yond these the court may use its discre-
ton. The platforms suggestion is that
Congress point out to the courts more
clearly just when they should and
when they should not act. although many
will think that judge of a United States
court is as capable as the legislators of
determining such questions.
The other republican suggestion Is that
no Temporary injunction should issue
without previously letting the persons en-
Joined know about it and giving them a
chance to urge the court not to make the
order, unless ''irreparable injury would
result from the delay, and that a speedy
hearing thereafter should be granted A
federal statute already provides for all
Of this except the last clause. That, how
ever. may require word Of explanation,
as follows: If a man wants to obtain an
Injunction against some one else, he nOti
fees the other and both appear before the
court on a certain day to argue for and
against the proposition. OF course, this
takes time. and If, as in the illustration of
the tree. the threatened act would require
only a few minutes. 1t might be all over
before could get B before the court.
In such extreme cases the court. on AS
application alone, can issue a temporary
restraining order" ordering B not to
touch the tree until the day when both
hearing the order is either made ''perma-
nent," as A wants. or Is Cancelled If B
manages to show that he was justified in
preparing to cut down the tree. 1t seems
only fair that this day for hearing the
other side should follow as soon as posi-
BILE. as the republican suggestion Is.
There have been instances where courts
have allowed several months to elapse be-
tween signing temporary orders" and
hearing what those who were restrained
had to say. Whether this provision should
take the form Of legislation or merely be