Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 9.djvu/554

526 526 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. had the right in Hungary of issuing money, and that this was a civil right having a pecuniary value, and therefore a property right, v^^hich equity should protect. Roundell Palmer, Cairns, & Cotton, for the plaintiff, sought to support the jurisdiction only upon this ground. They say, at page 225 : — there should be a direct clear interference with a right clearly connected with property. Cases on the revenue laws have no bearing ; there is no doubt that no state takes nodce of the revenue laws of another. The issue of these notes would be politically mischievous, and that is one great reason^ no doubt, why the plaintiff wishes to restrain it ; but we do not ask for the injunction on political grounds, but on the ground that the issue is an interference with a right of property of the plaintiff, and will inflict pecuniary injury on his subjects by bringing a quantity of spurious paper money into circulation." And this was the view of the court. Thus Lord Campbell says, at page 240 : — " I consider that this court has jurisdiction by injunction to protect property from an act threatened, which if completed would give a right of action." To the same effect Lord Justice Turner, at page 253, says: — " I agree that the jurisdiction of this court in a case of this nature rests upon injury to property actual or prospective, and that this court has no jurisdiction to prevent the commission of acts which are merely criminal or merely illegal, and do not affect any rights of property, but I think there are here rights of property quite sufflcient to found jurisdic- tion in this court." And in In re Debs,^ the Supreme Court sustained the injunction issued at the time of the Chicago strike, in 1894, against inter- ferences with interstate commerce, on the ground that the United States has an interest in the highways of interstate commerce, or is subject to an obligation toward the public regarding them, which entitles it to sue in equity to restrain unlawful obstructions. They say, at page 593 : — " A chancellor has no criminal jurisdiction. Something more than the threatened commission of an offence against the laws of the land is necessary to call into exercise the injunctive power of the court. There 1 158 U. S. 564.
 * 'A11 that is necessary to found the jurisdiction of this court is that