Wheeling majority. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1907-192?, 1910-06-23
Go VERNMENT
BIZ INJUNCTION
BY John q. WHITE.
IN san Francisco star


j meaning of those words, government
i BY Injunction would die like dry grass
4 before prairie fire.
Sane people will endure the burden
j of railway monopoly or the sly steal
Iings of tariff on imports rather than
4 permit the injunction writ to invade
i the. field of criminal law. And yet here
lin the United States the first steps
1have been taken on a path that if fol-
llowed will carry that writ back to the
criminal court from which it was
i driven by the revolution of the seven
teenth century. Or, perhaps more cor
i rectly. through the breaking of the
Ipower of the StIarts y
The writ of injunction unknown to-
! common law) is a process of the COURT
i of equity or cllancery, and according
| to our federal court (13 How. u. S., 563)
ssThe usages of the high court of chan y
Gerry in England, whenever the juris-
1 diction is exercised, govern the pro-
ceedings."
COURT OF EQUITY INIQUITY.
| The equity or chancery court is quite
different from the court Of common
law. The common law is the law Of
i the common people. Chancery is the
law u dFlSloSIe1Cy 81 Lie pSttef
clawses."
| The establishment of the court Of
chancery in England was pure usurpa.
ton, We copied their practice. The
Norman kings were in bhe habit of
making arbitrary arrests. Resistance
finally brought the Great Charter at
the hands Of King John. A hundred
years later the Wat Tyler rebellion
came in an attempt to compel obed-
fence to the charter. It is one thing
| to get a law enacted, but quite an
other to get it enforced.
Subsequent kings made laws under
which arrests could be made. This
mode of evasion was overcome and
then they emporarily suspended the
operation of, certain laws.
The kings were finally cornered on
this move also, and then came the in
ventfon or rather development of the
equity or chancery court.
1t will be observed that the kings
object was to arbitrarily control the
man-and thereby secure. in great or
small amount, his property. Dishonest
possession and enjoyment of property
is the purpose of most rascality.
KING VS.. COMMON Law.
The king interfered with the execu-
ton of a Judgment given by the court
of, common law. One such act led to
another, and to many. Thus the king
managed, through the courts, to retain
an unwarranted power over the peo-
|,ple.
The judges of the common law courts
resisted this invasion of their func-
lions and the struggle all but devel-
oped civil war With the kings aid,
however, the chancery courts were
able to maintain their being, with the
result that until 1874 England had two
sets of courts and judges.
The jealousy naturally existing be-
tween these courts resulted in a di
vision of the judicial field, by which
the 'susages" mentioned in 10 How.
above were established.
This invasive chancery court inter-
fered in both civil and criminal cases.
and on it's criminal side finally devol-
oped the Star Chamber, SO unsavorily
celebrated in British history
The English revolution abolished the
Star Charber and established the rule
that. an injunction will not issue to
lprecent a crime.'' Equity, therefore,
was limited to civil or property
cases.
! The federal constitution gives both
equitable and legal jurisdiction to the
| United States courts; although at least
+ one delegate in the constitutional con-
yention earnestly protested, and others
gave him some support.
LABOR is. NOT "PROPERTY."
/ We come now to the present day.
Under given conditions cases involv-
ing property may secure "that ex-
| traordinary remedy"-the writ of IN
junction. while criminal matters are
wholly within the common law.
/ Now. mans labor is not property.
Labor is the man himself. The Word
..nronertv', includes the products of Ia
bor and privileges granted by law
at patents, rights of way for railways
and the like.
| R1t in order to again stretch the
roxvey. Of the equity court, judges tell
us that mans labor is his property
4 and that the right to do business ~
not,hine more of less than the right 70
lIahor and that therefore the rlgnt u
conduct a blu Gness is property.
peins property" the right to tol'
=. - conduct business, in approprlal
i circumstances, becomes, under lnis ny
tnm subject to the writ Of Injunction l,
.sT,aborD is the vital energy OF man.
when expended in productive process cess
80 ,,,,l5er American law, has not peeii
ar,r since Abraham Lin aeon
| issued the emancipation procianl aa,4;o',
Under the cover of false oel,li.a .,,,.
r. = Sya,.u simple English WORD, oul
s.sdsas are seeking to fitch from AMER
5ues s;.;1a,s the freedom that IS theirs
csn 6 ! result ofscenturies OF resist
o on.s t to tyranny. They are seeking y y
ance = the equitable process back to
ne the criminal field. The court Of eanit y
- .s i ought, will one day be known as
| the court Of iniquity
I II WHEN is A MAN FREEg !
Lns !" This law looks upon man
a g Wholly free until he has forfe aps
freedom f. by doing something M MO "a