INJUNCTIONS: THE LAW THEREOF, AND ITS RECENT APPLICATION IN LABOR DISPUTES.-For the security and protection of human rights, specific guarantees and adequate legal remedies are of far more consequence than philosophical declarations. To be sure the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen are among the most significant landmarks in the progressive history of human liberty. They express the highest aspirations of mankind for freedom. Their words and thoughts have in modern times inspired and spiritualized the struggle against oppression. But in the practical operations of governments and in the daily administration of justice it is the concrete remedial process and not the philosophical formula that affords relief. Political philosophy may proclaim the right of personal freedom; but it is the writ of habeas corpus that secures its enforcement in the end. And so it is generally true that the means of enforcing rights are of more practical import than a declaration of the rights to be enforced. THE NATURE OF INJUNCTIONS.-As a means for securing the enforcement of rights the injunction may fairly be ranked in importance with the writ of habeas corpus and trial by jury. For the law of injunctions is not a body of principles declaratory of rights, but a means of enforcing that which the custom and conscience of courts of equity recognize as right and just. The law of injunctions is perhaps best understood and defined in connection with and as a part of that "system of justice which was administered by the High Court of Chancery in England in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction." Indeed the law of injunctions is one of the most important branches of Equity Jurisprudence. In this connection, however, it would be impracticable to fully define Equity in order to make clear the nature of injunctions, since to do so would be to write a history of the English Court of Chancery. For the purposes herein contemplated it is sufficient to observe (1st) that Equity in a broad philosophic sense is a system of natural justice harmonizing with the law of nature; (2d) that Equity in a more restricted sense "denotes justice between contending parties"; and (3d) that Equity in the narrow, technical, legal sense means a system of remedial justice as administered in certain judicial tribunals known as courts of equity. Thus the law of injunctions, as a branch of Equity Jurisprudence in the narrow, technical, legal sense, is one of the remedial processes of courts of equity. The injunction in the concrete is a writ issued by a court of equity commanding a person or persons to do or refrain from doing a particular act or acts to the end that the rights of some other person or persons may not be impaired. But a broader and less technical view must be taken of Equity in order to appreciate the significance of the nature of the law of injunctions especially in its recent applications in the United States in labor disputes. This broader view is taken from the standpoint of the history of law, wherein it appears that Equity is "a body of rules existing by the side of the original law, founded on distinct principles, and claiming incidentally to supersede the civil law by virtue of a superior sanctity in its principles.' Now the necessity and occasion for such a body of rules lies in the fact that society changes, evolves, progresses; while the law in comparison remains more or less fixed and stable. And so from time to time the law is found to be out of harmony with the new developments in society. Equity comes in to narrow the gulf between law and progress. This is what seems to be taking place to-day with respect to the law. of injunctions in the United States. Within the last century the changes in economic conditions have been so great as to be properly designated revolutionary. The equitable process of injunc-. tion promises in some respects to meet the peculiar difficulties arising out of the new conditions and afford relief otherwise unobtainable at law. THE FORM OF INJUNCTIONS.-An injunction being "a judicial process, operating in personam and requiring the person to whom it is directed to do or refrain from doing a particular thing," it follows that the writ as issued by the court of equity "should contain a description of the particular things or acts concerning which the defendant is enjoined, in order that there may be no opportunity for misapprehension. No particular form, however, is required, and the writ will, of course, be varied to meet the peculiar circumstances of each particular case. It is sufficient that it be an authentic notification to the defendant of the mandate of the court, which he must then obey at his peril." THE CLASSIFICATION OF INJUNCTIONS.-As to the nature of the command, injunctions are either mandatory or preventative (prohibitory). A mandatory injunction is a command by a court of equity to do a particular thing or to make a particular restoration. While a preventative injunction is simply a command to refrain from acting in a particular way. Since the chief and appropriate function of the injunction is to prevent future wrongs rather than to correct injuries already done, by far the greater number of injunctions are preventative or prohibitory. In point of their duration injunctions are classed as preliminary (interlocutory) or perpetual. A preliminary injunction is temporary and provisional, terminating with the final hearing. It does not in any way determine or conclude a right. Whereas the perpetual injunction is in fact the decree of the court determining a right. An ex parte injunction is one "granted upon the application of the plaintiff without the defendant being heard." PURPOSES OF THE WRIT: WHEN USED.-In general the purpose of the writ of injunction is the protection of rights It is used chiefly to protect property rights. For convenience the rights, to prevent the infringement of which injunctions are issued, may be classed as equitable rights and legal rights. As to the protection of equitable rights it may be observed in general that proceedings at law will be enjoined "where through fraud, accident, or mistake, such an advantage will be gained in a suit at law as will render it an instrument of great injustice, and it is against conscience to allow the suit to proceed, Equity will interfere by injunction." Thus the writ will be used to stay trial; to stay verdict; to stay judgment; to stay execution; to prevent the disclosure of confidential papers and secrets; to prevent unnecessary and annoying litigation; to prevent repeated attempts to open litigation as to the same right; etc. In the protection of legal rights injunctions are still more variously employed. Indeed the law of injunctions is largely a law for the more equitable protection of legal rights. Thus the court of equity will grant injunctions to prevent the waste of property by one who is possessed of a limited estate therein; to prevent injury to property through trespass by one having no right to the use thereof; to restrain nuisances both public. and private; to prevent the violation or abuse of easements; to prevent the violation of special privileges such as are granted to individuals or corporations by legislative authority; to restrain the infringement of patent rights; to restrain the infringement of copyrights; to restrain the infringement of trade marks; to restrain the transfer of property prior to or pending litigation; to restrain the transfer of stock; to restrain the breach of negative covenants; to prevent the breach of trust; to restrain corporate action; to keep public officers within the bounds of their authority; and to restrain partners from doing acts contrary to the articles of agree ment. In short, "the field of this jurisdiction is an exceedingly wide one, and scarcely any injury to the rights of property can be imagined where the writ would not issue, if the remedy at law was inadequate, and the only efficient redress would be the restraint of the commission or continuance of the wrongful act." THE VIOLATION OF INJUNCTIONS: PUNISHMENT. Since the granting of injunctions is one of the highest prerogatives of a court of equity, the command must under all circumstances be exactly and implicitly obeyed. There are no conditions under which the mandate of the court may be disregarded. Even an injunction that is manifestly erroneous must be literally obeyed. For the respect and obedience due the court of equity should be preserved at all hazards. And the tribunal granting the writ must necessarily be the arbiter. The violation of an injunction is a most serious offense, since it is treated as a contempt of the court granting the writ. The usual remedy in the case of such violations is an attachment for contempt of court. Fine and imprisonment are the usual forms of punishment. And in the measure of punishment the court necessarily exercises its own discretion except where limited by statute. It is clearly evident that it is the nature of its violation and the character and method of the punishment that makes the injunction the "strong arm of equity" and a weapon to be feared and respected." INJUNCTIONS AND LABOR DISPUTES. -During the last decade there has been an unusual popular interest in the law of injunctions. This is due largely to the use of the writ in labor disputes. Vast accumulations and concentration of capital, the formation of gigantic corporations, the organization of labor unions, and the marvelous development of industry have given rise to a use of the enjoining process which, to say the least, is not universally approved. And the attempt of courts of equity to prevent injuries arising out of strikes, lockouts, boycottes and the like has invidiously been characterized as "government by injunction." Criticisms charging the courts with usurpations of power and violations of the constitutional guarantees have come both from within and from without the legal profession. However, it is perhaps the abuse and not the use of the power that should constitute the object of criticism. It was not until about the middle of the present century that the aid of Equity was sought in labor disputes to protect employers against striking employees. In 1868 in the case of Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley (L. R. 6 Eq. 551) an injunction was granted restraining the officers of a trades union from posting placards urging workmen to keep away from a factory where a strike was in progress. But the use of the writ in this case was not universally approved of: in certain quarters it was severely criticised. A leading American case of enjoining torts in labor disputes is that of Sherry v. Perkins (147 Mass. 212) decided in 1888. Here the court issued an injunction restraining the members of a trades union from intimidating workmen by solicitation, threats, and displaying banners. The injunction was granted on the ground that such boycotting devices interfered with the business of the manufacturer and constituted a nui sance. It was not, however, until 1892 that this use of the injunction became common. In that year the Federal courts began to exercise the power so freely that popular interest was thoroughly aroused and complaints were heard against what has come to be known as "government by injunction.' In 1896 a bill purporting to limit the discretionary power of the Federal courts in punishing for contempts was introduced into Congress. Later in the same year the Democratic party in their national platform approved of the bill before Congress and declared that "We especially object to government by injunction as a new and highly dangerous form of oppression, by which.. Federal judges become at once legislators, judges, and executioners.' In commenting upon one of the leading cases the "London Law Times" declared that "it was really placing large masses of workmen engaged upon great industrial undertakings under a slavery régime." But the courts have not ceased to issue injunctions in labor conflicts, and the discussion of "government by injunction" has augmented. It has found its way into newspapers, pamphlets, magazines, law journals, and is taken up in the law clubs and bar associations. The THE NORTHERN PACIFIC CASE.-One of the most important and far reaching of the injunction cases is that of the Farmers' Loan and Trust Company v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company, et al. (60 Fed. Rep. 803). In this case the receivers of the Northern Pacific Railroad petitioned the court for an injunction enjoining their employees from a strike which was threatened on account of a proposed reduction of wages. court held that a combination to prevent the operation of the railroad in the hands of receivers appointed by the court was in fact a contempt, and intimates that injunctions in such cases are required by the public welfare. It held further that an employee may only quit the service of his employer in "a decent manner" and "at a decent time" of which the court of equity itself is the proper and competent judge. Strikes were declared to be unlawful combinations and conspiracies. It is important to note that in this case the injunction was to be issued "to all persons, associations and combinations, voluntary or otherwise, whether employees of said receivers or not, and to all persons generally. IN RE DEBS.-Another very important case of so-called "government by injunction" is the case of Debs (158 U. S. 564), arising out of the famous Chicago strike of 1894. Herein the government went into the court of equity to obtain an A riot was enjoined. injunction against rioters. The injunction was issued against eighteen defendants mentioned by name and "all other persons combining and conspiring with them, and all It was for the viocther persons whomsoever." lation of this order that Debs was punished for contempt of court. By many this case has been referred to as an unwarranted extension of the powers of the court in granting injunctions. CASES AND REFERENCES ON "GOVERNMENT BY INJUNCTION."-Springhead v. Riley, L. R., 6, Equity 551. Coer d'Alene Consolidated & Mining Co. v. Miners' Union, 51 Fed. Rep. 260. Murdock, Kerr & Co. v. Walker et al. 152 Penn 595. Casey v. Typographical Union, 45 Fed. Rep. 135. United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans et al., 54 Fed. Rep. 994. Southern California R. R. Co. v. Rutherford et al., 62 Fed. Rep. 796. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co. et al., 60 Fed. Rep. 803. Toledo, Ann Arbor, etc. R. R. Co. v. Penn. Co. et al., 54 Fed. Rep. 730. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564. China Co. v. Brown et al., 164 Penn 449. Barr et al. v. Essex Trades Council, the Typographic Union, No. 103 of Newark, et al., 53 N. J. Eq., 101, 136. "What is Government by Injunction'? Does it exist in the United States" (a pamphlet) by J. H. Benton, Jr. "Government by Injunction" by W. H. Dunbar, in "Law Quarterly Review," vol. XIII., p. 347. "Government by Injunction" by Charles Noble Gregory in "Harvard Law Review," vol. XI., No. 8. "Government by Injunction," by Ben S. Dean, in "The Green Bag," vol. IX., p. 540. "Injunctions Against Labor Unions," "Central Law Journal," vol. XXXIX., p. 265. "Injunctions Against Strikes," "Central Law Journal, vol. XXXXII., p. 74. "The Strike Injunctions," "The Nation," vol. LXV., p. 160. "Symposium on Injunctions," "The Nation, Vol. LXV., p. 256. "Misuse of Injunctions, "Arena," vol. XX., p. 194. "Modern Use of Injunctions," by F. J. Stinson, "Pol. Sc. Qr., vol. X., p. 189. "The Jackson Injunction," "Public Opinion,' "Government vol. XXIII., p. 229. by Injunction and the Wage-earners," "Gunton's Magazine," vol. XI., pp. 243 and 244. for export Case stamps for spirits bottled in bond.. Wines, liquors, or compounds known or denominated as wine, and made in imitation of sparkling wine or champagne, but not made from grapes grown in the United States, and liquors, not made from grapes, currents, rhubarb, or berries grown in the United States, but produced by being rectified or mixed with distilled spirits or by the infusion of any matter in spirits, to be sold as wine, or as a substitute for wine, in bottles containing not more than 1 pint, per bottle or package.. Same, in bottles containing more than 1 pint, and not more than 1 quart, per bottle or package (And at the same rate for any larger quantity of such merchandise, however put up, or whatever may be the package.) Stamp tax on wine bottled for sale. (See Schedule B.) .05 .10 .10 .20 Cigars of all descriptions made of tobacco, or any substitute therefor, and weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand Cigars of all descriptions made of tobacCO, or any substitute therefor, and weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand, 18 cents per pound Cigarettes weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand and of a wholesale value or price of more than $2 per thousand, 36 cents per pound....... Cigarettes weighing not more than 3 pounds per thousand, and of a wholesale value or price of not more than $2 per thousand, 18 cents per pound.......... Cigarettes weighing more than 3 pounds per thousand.. OLEOMARGARINE. $3.00 .54 1.08 .54 3.60 Rate of tax. All substances heretofore known as oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine, and neutral; all mixtures and compounds of oleomargarine, oleo, oleomargarine oil, butterine, lardine, suine, and neutral: all lard extracts and tallow extracts, and all mixtures and compounds of tallow, beef fat, suet, lard, lard oil, vegetable oil, annotto, and other coloring matter, intestinal fat, and offal fat made in imitation or semblance of butter, or when so made calculated or intended to be sold as butter or for butter, domestic, per pound... Same, imported from foreign countries, per pound FILLED CHEESE. Tax on, per pound... Tax on inported, per pound. $0.02 .15 .01 .08 Quarter barrel of 49 pounds, or more than 24% pounds. Eighth Barrel, of 24% pounds or less.. Rate of tax. .01 .00% Mixed flour imported from foreign countries, in addition to import duties, must pay internal-revenue tax as above. SCHEDULE A, AS AMENDED BY ACT OF MARCH 2, 1901. Par. 1. Bonds, debentures, or certifi- Certificates of stock, on each original Par. 2. Sales, agreements of sale, or Par. 3. From and after April 1, 1901, On all such contracts, agreements, trades, or transactions with respect to mer .05 .05 .02 .01 .01 Rate of tax. chandise, on each $100 in value or fraction thereof of the merchandise covered or pretended to be covered On all such contracts, agreements, trades, or transactions with respect to stocks, bonds, or other securities, on each $100 or fraction thereof of the face value of the stocks, bonds, or other securities covered or pretended to be covered.... Par. 4. Bill of exchange (inland), draft or order for the payment of any sum of money, otherwise than at sight or on demand, and for each renewal of the same, for a sum not exceeding $100.... And for each additional $100 or fractional part thereof in excess of $100.. Par. 5. Bill of exchange (foreign) or letter of credit (including orders by telegraph or otherwise for the payment of money issued by express or other companies, or any person or persons) drawn in but payable out of the United States, if drawn singly or otherwise than in a set of three or more, according to the custom of merchants and bankers, for a sum not exceeding $100 ... For each $100 or fractional part thereof in excess of $100... If drawn in sets of two or more, for every bill of each set where the sum made payable shall not exceed $100.. For each $100 or fractional part thereof in excess of $100.. (Excepting that bills of exchange drawn against the value of products or merchandise actually exported to foreign countries shall not be subject to this tax, provided that such bills of exchange shall be accompanied by proper invoices and receipts, bills of lading, or vouchers, showing that goods of a value at least equal to the amount for which said bill of exchange may be drawn shall have been exported.) Par. 6. Bills of lading, manifest, or other evidence of receipt and forwarding, issued by any railroad or steamboat company, carrier, or corporation, or person whose occupation is to act as such, except persons, companies, or corporations engaged in carrying on a local or other express business, on each of said bills of lading, manifests, or other memorandum, and on each duplicate thereof.. Par. 7. Bond: For indemnifying any person or persons, firm, or corporation who shall have become bound or engaged as surety for the payment of any sum of money, or for the due execution or performance of the duties of any office or position, and to account for money received by virtue thereof.. Par. 8. Certificate of profits, or any certificate or memorandum showing an interest in the property or accumulations of any association, company, or corporation, and on all transfers thereof, on each $100, of face value or fraction thereof.. Par. 9. Contract: .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .01 .01 .01 .50 .02 Broker's note, or Rate of tax. memorandum of sale of any goods or merchandise, stocks, bonds, exchange, notes of hand, real estate, or property of any kind or description issued by brokers or persons acting as such, for each note or memorandum of sale not otherwise provided for in this act..... Par. 10. Conveyance: Deed, instrument, or writing, whereby any lands, tenements, or other realty shall be sold, granted, assigned, transferred, or otherwise conveyed to or vested in the purchaser or purchasers, or any other person or persons, by his, her, or their direction, when the consideration or value exceeds $2,500 and does not exceed $3,000. For each additional $500 or fractional part thereof in excess of $3,000..... Par. 11. Entry of any goods, wares, or merchandise at any custom-house, either for consumption or warehousing, not exceeding $100 in value.. Exceeding $100 and not exceeding $500 in value... Exceeding $500 in value. Par. 12. Entry for the withdrawal of any goods or merchandise from customs bonded warehouse. Par. 13. Passage tickets: Ticket, order, contract, or certificate for passage by any vessel from any port in the United States to a foreign port, costing $50.... For each $50, or any part thereof, in addition thereto.. .10 .25 .25 .25 .50 1.00 .50 .50 .50 .01 .02 STAMP TAX NOT UNDER SCHEDULES A AND B. On seats in parlor or palace cars and berths in sleeping cars (stamp to be affixed to the ticket by the company).. .01 TAX ON LEGACIES AND DISTRIBUTIVE SHARES OF PERSONAL PROPERTY. Taxes accrue on legacies or distributive shares which exceed $10,000 in actual value, passing from any person on or after June 13, 1898, as follows: On personal property valued over $10,000 and not over $25,000: 1. Legatee being of lineal issue, or lineal 2. Legatee being the descendant of a .75 1.50 3.00 |