The San Francisco call., 1904-08-07

to enforce the authority OF the union, and 20
dictate to plaintiff whom he should, and whom
he should not, employ That the piaintin
was injured In his property rights cannot be
gainsaid; that the acts Of Defendants. II con-
tinued. would have ultimately destroyed his
business Is admitted. II defendants acts were
unlawful. the law presurnes that their intent
was unlawful; and the act OF 1908 could not
and does not. sanction combination TO ac-
conplish unlawful act
But, aside from these considerations, am
OF opinion that the act In question. In 50 Far
as IT attempts to deprive courts Of equity Of
the power to issue iniunctions in cases OF
trade disputes" Is unconstitutional. for the
following reasons:
First. It violates that provision OF our
State constitution which declares that all
men have certain inalienable rights. among
which are those OF enjoying and defending
life and liberty. acquiring possessing and
protecting property" This provision Is con-
tanned in the Declaration OF Rights, and It
forever safeguards the rights OF persons and
the rights Of property Freedom Is OF the
freedom thus guaranteed to the citizen no
more implies a license IN one man OF in any
combination OF men to haraSS or injure an
other in the pursuit OF his lawful business
than 1t implies license to deprive him OF
his personal liberty. The Constitution alike
protects natural freedom and industrial free
II the right OF property Is inalienable. the
right Of labor is inviolate. In Billings vs..
Hall. CAL Z. the Supreme Court OF this
provision in question refers to Il as "one OF
the fundamental principles OF enlightened gov
which there could be neither liberty nor sstety
TO the citizen II one OF the primary objects
OF government is to enable the citizen TO ac-
quire, possess and defend property how can
IL be impaired by legislationy' The right
to labor Is right Of property, and the duty
laws. - 77' '-H'7 " ''
LABOR is MOST SACRED.
In 127 Cal. 13 the Supreme Court quotes
with approval the following extract from
State VS.. Goodwill SO W. va 1T9: ''The
property which every man has in his own
labor. as it is the original foundation OF all
other property. so II is the most sacred and
or union OF employees can bar one of the tight
to labor. for the right to labor is the right
is inviolate If. when violated. the law affords
no redress? For the law TO declare a right
and then deny 1t all means OF enforcement
Keep the word Of promise to our ear,
And break it to our hope"
the % IaE suGn qor Il ~ dGes p n9s rest 9pon
maxims that. Where there is a wrong there
is remedy" Hence when property right
is violated, and the common law affords the
injured party no remedy. equity viii inter
vene to redress the wrong. To deny the
plaintiff equitable relief for the invasion OF
process of law and to violate a fundamental
principle OF the Constitution Of the State:
for right without a remedy is no right
at all.
Second The provision in question il special
legislation. inasmuch 1t Is not OF uniform
operation: under it ntigants do not stand
equal before the law. While IL Is true that
class legislation Is. in the nature OF things.
sometimes proper. yet such classification must
be founded upon differences. either defined
in the Constitution OF natural in themselves.
or which suggest a reason which might nat
urally be held to justify diversity OF It'll
cation
In johnson VS.. Goodyear Co. 127 Cal :.
the Legislature attempted to confer upon the
employees OF a corporation certain legal rights.
which other employees did not possess: and
, the law, upon that account, was held uncon-
sttutionak
The provision is special legislation because.
in matters OF trade dispute. il denies to
employers equitable remedy which it ac-
cords to the non-empIoying class: it applies
, to trade disputes rule not applicable 70
other disputes: one class of property. and one
of property owners. under certain conditions
may obtain EQUITABLE relief. which. under the
same conditions this act denies to another
class Of property and property owners. The
owner of real estate IS entitled TO an injunc-
ton AGAINST tresoasser whose acts threaten
his possession but. under this legislation. the
man who own a business, under like condi-
] tions Is denied like relief
The provision is special legislation because