Danger Of Government By Injunction

When in 1896 the democrats in their national platform took a decided stand against "Government by Injunction," and Wm. J. Bryan made the principle prominent in the discussions of the campaign issues, there was much scoffing and the thing was laughed at and held up to scorn as being nothing worth bothering the public with. At that time the principle was made prominent by the fact that the courts had used this most powerful of all writs against labor organizations. Because the issue was raised in this connection was one of the reasons, possibly, why it was looked upon as of little consequence. Now, however, as the writ of injunction is being used against some of the great money combines like the beef trust, the great danger of "government by injunction" is again brought to the attention of the public and it is acknowledged that it is a danger to the liberties of the people. The principle, however, is not at all different than it was when the writ was used against the labor organizations. Thus is the difference as to the ox that is gored accentuated.

Judge Tuley, of Chicago, in a recent utterance on "government by injunction'' uses the following pertinent language:

Why use a court of chancery either to punish crime or to prevent the commission of crime? The writ of injunction is the most powerful writ known to the law; the power to punish disobedience to the writ by contempt proceedings is the only absolute power in this government. The writ may issue with or without notice; failure to respect the writ may be punished by imprisonment, the limit of which is in the discretion of the judge, and no appeal lies to the judgment if no fine or costs be imposed. The right of trial by jury is ignored and the constitutional guaranty that no person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself in any criminal case may be practically disregarded.

Certainly it was never the intention of the framers of the charter of our liberties that absolute power should be lodged in the hands of any officers of the government. Yet just this power is used by the judges when resort is taken to the writ of injunction, as has been done in the injunctions issued by the United States courts against labor organizations and in the pending case of the government against the beef trust. That a judge is reasonable in his judgments in such cases makes no difference with the tact that arbitrary power is in his hands and may be exercised at his discretion in the overriding of constitutional guarantees. It frequently happens that a United States judge interferes in railroad disputes and takes into his own hands the management of the railroad. He becomes a dictator, and even lays an collects taxes. It is not a safe thing to intrust any such dangerous power in he hands of any man or set of men. There are many very excellent men upon the bench, but none of them are good enough to be instrusted with absolute power.

It is time congress should take this matter in hand and set bounds beyond which the judges shall not go in their extension of this dangerous power. This power has already been dangerously extended and it should be curtailed in its insidious march against constitutional guarantees. The exercise of this dangerous power is sure to inflate the judges in their own estimation and lead them on to an ever increasing prerogative.