United labor bulletin., 1911-01-05

the kings conscience. If those law
judges cannot head him of, l will" So
he would issue an Injunction ordering
the man who made the threat not to
carry it out.
Do you ask how that order could pre-
vent the carrying out of the threat any
more than the law itself could if the law
already forbade the act? You have hit
The Exact Point.
OF course the injunction order could
not prevent the act any more than the
law could, unless it scared the man more.
But the old chancellors could have ex-
planned the difference. If the man en-
Joined were charged before law judges
with breaking the regular law, he would
have TO be indicted ny grand jury on
the testimony of witnesses, and then
tried by jury of his equals on the testi-
mony of witnesses who would have to
submit to cross-examination to see
whether they were lying or not, and
then he would have to be convicted by
that jury of his equals. All this before
he could be punished The law judges
could not punish men for breaking laws
unless they were first proved guilty and
duly convicted; for it was contrary to
their rules to punish any person who
might in reason be innocent.
Not so with the chancellor's injunc-
ton. If man were charged with break
ing that, the chancellor himself could
try him, with or without witnesses, with
or without cross-examination, with or
without a jury; and could himself con-
vict the man. himself impose any penalty
he wished to impose. and himself decide
whether and when to grant pardon.
So the question of chancery injunctions
was after all not a matter Of heading on
wickedness; 1t was question of whether
the person charged with wickedness
should have a trial under the law of the
land applicable to all persons alike. or
chancellor's trial under judge-made law
ground out at the chancellor's own fac
tory for each particular case.
Nor did the chancellors stop with MAX
ing particular procedure laws for pun
ishing breaches of the regular laws. Very
often they would decide that it was con-
trary to the kings conscience for this
man or that to do particular things
against which there was no law at all
outside the chancellor's notion of what
the kings conscience ought to be. And
in those cases, just as in the others. If
the Injunction were disobeyed, or the
chancellor thought it was. he did the
furnishing himself and in his own way.
No red tape for him. He punished whom
soever he hit upon as gu y according
to his own judge-made laws against
wickedness. and according to his own
judge-made laws of procedure for dis
tinguishing the guilty from the innocent
You see he was king. Judge. jury. wit
nesses. sheriff. and parliament. all in
one, whenever he wanted to be.
Government BY Injunction.
This was the beginning of what Gov
years afterwards. and in a country that
neither old King Henry nor his chan
cellor ever heard of. called government
by Injunction" which means government
of organized labor by organized labor
sweaters through judges who have
got their training for judgeships by serv-
ing as lawyers for thehssweaters"
But to get back to those old chancel-
lors- OF course they had trouble with
the law judges. There were some pretty
good things about their ''butting in with
the kings conscience up their sleeves.
but there were also some bad ones. And
the law judges were Jealous anyhow.
Perhaps the worst thing about the chan
cellors was the supple way in which they
were getting to side-step the time hon
ored safeguards OF innocence in the
criminal law. such as trial by jury and
OF accusing witnesses
II is likely that Jealousy had quite as
much as anything else to do with the
quarrel that sprang up between the chan
cellors and the law judges. but this
makes little difference now. The quarrel
resulted in a pretty good compromise, in
which there was one highly important
Mind this now. for it pro-
and vitaily Affects organized la
bor even in our own distant time and
The chancellor agreed not to inject the
kings elastic conscience into criminal
matters. A wise stipulation that. in the
interest of personal rights. II the chan
celior could meddle in criminal matters.
he might finally destroy the safeguards
of English liberty; and while England
had more than the usual supply of those
safeguards she had none to spare.
Except for that stipulation a person
might go to the chancellor and say: MY
neighbor threatens to steal my pigeons.
and the regular judges won't head him
of. nor punish him for stealing them un-
til he steals them: is that according to
the kings consciences" And then the
could reply: 1T is not ac-
cording to the kings conscience: the
kings conscience revolts at it will is
sue an injunction for bidding your neigh
Dor to steal your pigeons: and then If
your pigeons disappear will punish him
for contempt of cour; for breach of that
Again. except for hat stipulation. the
chancellor might issue injunctions
against libelous statements before pub