without first giving them an opportunity to be heard and to present the evidence of such rights, and only in a strong and urgent case of emergency should a respondent be so restrained on the ex parte showing of the complainant when from a careful examination and consideration of the bill or petition and evidence presented by the complainant it is manifest that irreparable injury ́ will be done unless the respondent is immediately restrained from doing the attempted or threatened wrong or injury, and then the respondent should be accorded a hearing at the earliest date possible for the purpose of determining upon a full investigation and hearing whether the injunction should be dissolved or continued of force. But when the emergency demands it, when the protection of property or of any legal or equitable right renders it necessary, the courts ought not only to have this restraining power but they ought to exercise it promptly and vigorously by granting injunctions and by adequately punishing violations thereof, not for the purpose of terrorizing or tyrannizing, but for the purpose of giv ing ample protection to sacred rights imperilled and invaded or about to be invaded, remembering, too, that all rights are sacred; that "calm and immovable justice sits on her eternal throne, and in her eyes right is right forever and wrong is eternally wrong.' APPENDIX R. JEFFERSON AND THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF HIS MAS-- PAPER BY CHARLES JEWETT SWIFT, OF COLUMBUS. In any righteous protest against the habitual proneness of certain writers and historians in the North to withhold or obscure the credit which justly belongs to Southern men in realms of great achievements, it would be invidious not to exempt a certain few from any reprobative classification. Among these we cannot too much admire the splendid and scholarly works of the lateJohn Fisk, the discriminating but unnarrow views of Senator George F. Hoar, and the generous offerings of praise on behalf of Southern chivalry and manhood by Charles Francis Adams. These, all citizens of Massachusetts, are too resplendent with their own intelligences and too jealous of the proper dispensation of their own knowledge of American history not to accord honor where honor is due, and praise where praise is deserved, even when the constellations in the empire of statesmanship are composed of so many stars of the first magnitude, belonging to the Southern firmament. In the editorial writings of a weekly paper published in New York, and largely read in the South, we have very recently noticed its claim that Lincoln was a great commoner, while Jefferson was an aristocrat; that Lincoln held himself in the closest touch and sympathy with the people, and that Jefferson held aloof from the people. Such a palpable and downright misstatement of the facts might be attributed to ignorance if it were not so self-imposed that it carries with it the necessary implication of its own ignominy. Jefferson taught that in our government the people and not the classes were sovereign, and he was so tenacious of this gospel that his enemies decried him as the advocate of socialism and the friend of proletarianism. In the colony of Virginia he led the forces which disestablished the church. He destroyed the landed aristocracy by the repeal of the law of primogeniture and entail, and being in Paris during the early stages of the French revolution, he applauded the whole actuating idea of that terrible uprising for the restoration of the rights of man. At the commencement of the French revolution, upon the reassembling of the States General, on the suggestion of Jefferson, the name was changed to national assembly, as being the more appropriate for a popular representative body. The same New York weekly also spoke of Monroe as the nominal author of the Monroe doctrine, but whose real author was -John Quincy Adams, Monroe's Secretary of State. Secretary of State John Hay, in his address last summer at the commencement exercises of Harvard, also accredited the Monroe doctrine to a Harvard graduate, obviously meaning John Quincy Adams, who was Secretary of State at the time the message was promulgated. In reference to historical accuracy the facts are as follows: In September, 1823, Mr. Canning proposed to Mr. Rush that the United States should co-operate with England in preventing European interference with the former Spanish-American colonies, as had been proposed in the interest of monarchial absolutism at the Congress of Verona in 1822. Two or three months later Monroe, with the approval of John Quincy Adams and Thomas Jefferson, declared the doctrine as it is formulated in the President's message of December 2d, 1823. In 1820 Jefferson wrote: "The day is not distant when we may formally require a meridian of partition through the ocean which separates the two hemispheres, on the hither side of which no European gun shall ever be heard, nor an American on the other. The principles of society here and there are radically different, and I hope no American patriot will ever lose sight of the essential policy of interdicting in the seas and territory of both Americas the ferocious and sanguinary contests of Europe." Here we have in Jefferson's own language a full statement of the principles of the Monroe doctrine, written by him two years before the meeting of the Holy Alliance or Congress of Verona, and three years before the declaration of the message of President Monroe. William H. Seward, as Secretary of State, immediately after the Civil War, in an official letter, which caused the hasty withdrawal of the French intervention in Mexico, based his demand on the fundamental idea as expressed by Jefferson; and so did President Cleveland in the rather extreme use of the doctrine in his celebrated Venezuelan message. The message of President Monroe amplified the doctrine, but it was declaratory after all of the questions as defined by Jefferson. Some months ago in New York Senator Depew assigned to Mr. Lincoln exclusively the qualities of original statesmanship, and denied such qualities in his mention of Jefferson. In all of the essentials of Mr. Lincoln's political creed, by which he made the greatest impression and presented the strong side of the LincolnDouglas debates, Jefferson was his guide. Even before the formation of the Federal Constitution Jefferson prepared Virginia's deeds of cession of all the vast territory north of the Ohio river, in which he, among other things, suggested or provided that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crime, whereof the accused shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in said territory.' This clause was included in the organic legislation known as the Ordinances for the Government of the Northwest Territory, and of these Mr. Webster said that they were the greatest and most statesmanlike body of laws ever enacted. By similar clauses Jefferson tried to prevent the introduction of slavery in the territories of Alabama and Mississippi, upon the theory that by the restriction of slavery to the States where it then existed, it would gradually disappear. These were afterwards the views and teachings of Mr. Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, as a war measure, and not as a moral manifesto. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery in the United States and all places under their jurisdiction, is in substance the same and almost in the identical language employed' by Jefferson for the inhibition of slavery by the ordinances for the government of the territory north of the Ohio river. Mr. Lincoln's statesmanship on the one supreme issue which elected him to the Presidency was derived from Jefferson. The latter alsowas unfaltering in his faith that ours was a government of the people, "not to perish from earth," and which received its enduring verity as a prophecy fulfilled in the immortal paraphrase by President Lincoln at Gettysburg. To deny to Jefferson the concepts and work of unsurpassed original and constructive statesmanship would be the equivalent of denying the justice of according to Mr. Lincoln the great part he played in the history of the republic, and would be in effect the impairment of the warrant of his own cause, based upon the teachings of Jefferson more than upon all other sources and authorities put together. President Butler, of Columbia University, in an address at Philadelphia in June of last year, mentioned three or four foremost American statesmen, but omitted from his list the name of Jefferson. There is a popular belief that Jefferson is entitled to some credit as the author of the Declaration of Independence, and in consideration of which and for many other reasons it is respectfully submitted that when representative and scholarly men before enlighted American audiences fail to mention his name, or give to him a subordinate place, it is both strange and unaccountable. Theodore Roosevelt, now President of the United States, in consequence of the Buffalo tragedy, and who, by the grace of the next Republican convention and the majority of the electoral vote, may succeed himself in that highest office, in his speech at. the dedication of the St. Louis Exposition only once, and that in |