571
The Editor's Bag without notice when it appears that "immediate and irreparable loss or damage will result," but the difference is that the danger of such loss or damage must be shown, not by general allega tions, but by "specific facts shown by affidavit or by the verified bill." Under the old rules, applications for restraining orders were often denied, and it is hardly conceivable that the new rules will make it more difficult for an ag grieved party with a sound cause of action to establish his right to have a restraining order issued in his favor. The discussion fomented by the labor unions cannot be said to have furnished tangible and weighty evidence of abuse of the power to issue temporary restrain ing orders without notice, and the courts have, as a rule, been cautious in the exercise of this discretion. Con sequently the new requirement that hearings on applications for temporary restraining orders shall be given in not less than ten days, is of interest as a prescribed limitation of time rather than as a remedy for an imaginary evil. The new rules will by no means meet all the demands of the labor unions nor satisfy those who desire all the changes proposed by the Clayton bill. Many of the points of the Clayton bill are em bodied in the new rules, but the court is not compelled to set forth its reasons for granting the restraining order, as provided by the Clayton bill, nor are those procuring the restraining order required to give bond. The labor unions will continue their agitation and will prob ably be satisfied with nothing less than legislation prohibiting the issuance of restraining orders altogether, where such orders are sought by employers in dis putes between capital and labor. Har angues on the mischief of "government by injunction" will continue, notwith
standing the slight basis of such charges, and notwithstanding the formulation of rules which should enable the labor unions to feel more clearly than ever the equality of all men before the law. HIS PROOF AST. LOUIS lawyer tells of acuriously complicated love affair that arose in a Missouri prison. One of the con victs, it seems, who had been serving in an exemplary way a very long sentence, fell in love with a woman employed in the wardon's household. She returned his affection, and some sort of dispensa tion was effected whereby the two might be wedded. They were called before the warden to advise him touching cer tain formalities necessary to the nego tiation of the marriage. A difficulty immediately arose by reason of the lack of proof of the death of the convict's first wife. It appeared that a communication sent to the town in the East where she had lived was returned unclaimed. "It looks to me," said the warden, "that this marriage cannot proceed unless you can produce proof of your wife's death." The convict reflected a moment, and then replied: "If you must know, the first sentence I ever served was for killing my wife." A JUDGE PUNISHED FOR CON TEMPT JUDGE A. W. Fite of the Cherokee Circuit Court of Georgia recently criticized the intermediate Court of Appeals of that state for twice reversing him on a decision sentencing a negro to twenty years for attempted assault. The Court of Appeals declared him in contempt because of having published a contemptuous, defamatory, and libelous
