Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-12-07

and the State Department through /
friendly negotiation to secure the I
elimination from the laws and the !
practice under them of any for
eign country of that which is un- !
duly discriminatory. !
mo one is seeking a tariff war
or a condition in which the spirit ]
! of retaliation shall be aroused !
els-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s
making invidious distinction. 1t Is per-
haps not too much to say that. speaking
generally, the defects are less In the
federal courts than in the state courts.
But they are very great In the federal
courts.
Example Of England. .
The expedition with which business is
disposed of both on the aivil and the
criminal side of English courts under
modern rules of procedure makes the de-
lays In our courts seem archaic and bar
barous. The procedure in the Federal
courts should furnish an example for the
State courts. | presume 1t is impe ssible.
without an amendment to the ConStitu-
ton, to unite under one form of action
the proceedings at common law and pro-
ceedings in equity in the Federal &C urtS,
but 1t is certainly not Impossible by 4
statute to simplify and make short and
direct the procedure both at law and in
equity in those courts. 1t is not impossi-
BILE to cut down still more than it is cut
down, the jurisdiction OF the Supreme
Court SO as to confine It almost wholly
to statutory and constitutional questions.
Under the present statutes the equity and
admiralty procedure In the Federal courts
is under the control Of the Supreme Court
but in the pressure Of business to which
that court is subjected. it is impossible
to hope that a radical and proper reform
of the Federal equity procedure can be
brought about.
Recommends a Commission.
l therefore recommend legislation pro-
viding for the appointment by the Presi-
dent of a commission with authority to
examine the law and equity procedure of
the federal courts Of first instance, the
law of appeals from those courts to the
courts of appeals and to the Supreme
Court, and the costs imposed In such pro-
cedure upon the private litigants ana
upon the public treasury and make rec
concentration with a view to simplifying
and expediting the procedure as far as
possible and making 1t as inexI enslve
as may be to the litigant OF little means.
No Injunctions Without Notice.
The platform Of the successful party In
the last election contained the following:
1.-THE republican party will uphold at ali
times the authority and integrity OF the
courts, State and Federal, and will ever
insist that their powers to enforce their
process and to protect life. liberty and
property shall be preserved invioiate. We
believe, however, that the rules OF pro-
cedure in the Federal courts with respect
to the issuance of the writ Of injunction
should be more accurately defined by
statute, and that no Injunction or tempo
rary restraining order should be issued
without notice, except where irreparable
injury would result from delay. In which
case a speedy hearing thereafter should
be granted
Appropriate Legislation Urged.
the promise thus made, appropriate legls-
lation be adopted. The ends Of justice
will best be met and the chief cause Of
complaint against ilI-considered injunc-
tons without notice will be removed by
the enactment OF a statute forbidding
hereafter the issuing Of any Injunction
or restraining order. whether temporary
or permanent. by any Federal court.
without previous notice and a reasonable
opportunity to be heard on behalf OF the
parties to be enjoined: unless 1t shall ap-
pear to the satisfaction CT the court that
the delay necessary to give such notice
and hearing wol Id result in irreparable
injury to the complainant and unless also
the court shall from the evidence make
a written finding. which shall be spread
upon the court minutes, that immediate
and irreparable injury is likely t ensue
to the complainant, and shall define the
injury, state why 1t is irreperable. and
shall also indorse on the order issued
the date and the hour of the issuance OF
the order.
Should Be Limited.
Moreover. every such injunction or re-
straining order issued without previous
notice and opportunity by the defendant
to be heard should by force of the stat
ute expire and be Of no effect after seven
days from the issuance thereof or within
any time less than that period which the
court may fix, unless within such seven
days of such less period, the injunction
or order is extended or renewed after
previous notice. and opportunity to be
heard.
My judgment is that the passage of
such an act which really ernbodies the
best practice in equity and IS very like
the rule now in force In some courts will
prevent the issuing of ill-advised orders
of injunction without notice and will
render such orders when issued much
less Objectionable by the short time in
which they may remain effective.
Special Antitrust Law Message.
The jurisdiction of the General Govern
ment over interstate commerce has led
to the passage of the so-called Sherman
Antitrust Law and the Interstate
Commerce Law and its amendments
The developments in the operation OF
those laws. as shown by Indictments,
trials. judicial decisions. and other sources
of information. call for a discussion and
some suggestions as to amendments.
These I prefer to embody in a special
message instead of including them in the
present communication, and / shall avail
myself of the first convenient opportunity
to bring these subjects to the attention
of