The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-01-14

defendants to execute it with the result
 stated in the bill would present the case of individuals under color of a void law inf1icting irreparable injury upon a prop
 erty right, and the person thus injured
 would ordinarily be entitled to @ remedy in the court of equity instead of being put to an action at law to vindicate law.
 The office in general of preliminary injunction is to maintain @ status quo existing at the time of the filing of the bill, where the ultimate right Is involved in doubt, with the probabilities in It's favor, and there is danger of irreparable injury if the preliminary injunction be withheld and its office sometimes Is by means of it's operation in the future upon the exercise of right to restore the status quo to what it was, where 1t has been illegally changed to the prejudice of the complainant who has endeavored to maintain it, and has been illegally pre- vented from doing so without fault or ac- quieseence on his part prior to the nling of his bill. In issuing a preliminary in- junction, the court except in very rare instances must always consider the bal ance of resultant injury to the parties, and in many cases to the public, and where their right is asserted Is one in the exercise of which the public has vital interest as in the execution of laws Of
 this kind, the court may refuse a pre- liminary injunction, when If the matter concerned only the parties to the suit 1t would grant it. The situation at the time the preliminary writ is asked must ire
 ouently control the denial or granting of it even though the right sought to be protected be clear, and though on final de- cree the court might be compelled to ad- judge the right in favor of the complain ant and render judgment accordingly. Winslow vs Baltimore and Ohio Railroad
 company, 16S United States 66l.
 Attacks for grave cause have been aply made upon the validity of the prohibition statute but whatever may be the con
 yictions of the court as to the validity or
 invalidity of the statute, and as to the l judgment which the court should pro- nounce thereon, 1t is clear In the conVlc- ;, ton for the reasons now to be given 1 that it ought not now to render any judg-
 ment or express any opinion thereon. ] Question for Legislature.
 The good or i'll of prohibition law Is
 a question addressed solely to the legis- ] lature It is the sole judge Of such ques- lions and it's determination Is binding upon all courts The enforcement of the pro hibition is one which profoundly af- fects the interests of the public as well as the rights and fortunes of individuals. Y the antagonstic views of men as to the bounds of legitimate province of govern ment and the scope of the right Of per sonal liberty in such matters It's dis- cussion is always attended with some thing of public unrest. and excitement. It is a questie'l Of which the highest court or
 the state is the sole arbiter, and us decision is binding on all the world. It Is probable that the supreme court Of the
 xyiD question. The law is now being measurably ob- served If this court. ,on the theory that the prohibition statuteis unconstitutional, should issue preliminary injunction, and the supreme court of the state should afterwards uphold the validity of the law, this court would have to retrace It's steps, and dismiss the bill. Under such circum- stances the issue of a preliminary in- junction would not be kindness even to those whose business has been de- stroyed by the operation of the statute. If they should re-enter the business under the protection of q preliminary inJunc- ton. and the highest court of the state should hold the law to be valid. parties who engaged In the business In the in- terval would be subject to indictments and punishment and be prosecuted in the state courts the moment the protection of the preliminary injunction was withdrawn. Such change In conditions, especially in communities whose local authorities from the time of their foundation down to the present day have been permitted to control matters according to the Judgment and wishes of the people most immediate ly concerned and have, therefore. per nlitted the carrying on of the occupation, would only bring about furhter business and social unrest, and disturbance or public tranquility. These are consequences which no court can overlook in deciding upon the granting of preliminary in- Junction. and they far outweigh any in jury which an individual may suffer from being deprived of the right to enter the business, if 1t be found to exist, in the short interval necessary to get decision of the supreme court of the state. The situation represents q case where the rights of the individual must yield to considerations of public welfare. It Is far xu<u1z 1zxrx1