The San Francisco call., 1904-08-07

It applies only TO particular class and makes
employees the iumunes OF the law
The constitution Of the state provides that
no citizen, or class OF citizens shall be Zrant-
ed privileges, or immunities which. upon the
same terms. shall not be granted to all citi-
zens.
II the acts herein complained OF were com
nitted BY an organization OF men. between
whom and the plaintiR the relation OF EN-
equitable relief would be und0ubted: but un-
der this provision. IL one or more OF his
NIT these acts, the equitable remedy does not
exist In my opinion there can be no legal
destroying It does. constitutional right.
PROVISION IS VOID.
Third-The provision in question Is void BE-
cause It seeks TO deprive the Superior Court
Of a judicial Drerogative conferred upon It
by the constitution. The constitution pro-
vides that the Superior Court shall havs
jurisdiction OF all cases In equity II the
Of the right to issue an injunction IN : cass
Ike this then It could deprive It OF the right
70 issue an injunction in any case; IL could
absolutely divest the court Of what Is ana
always has been one OF its most potent rem
edies, thus nullifying its powers and making
Defendants counsel upon this point relies
upon the Wright case, 139 Cal. 474 and ths
cases one court sought TO enjoin judicial pro-
ceedings in another court and, in each in
erless 70 make such an order In the Wright
case the court held that the Legislature may.
restrain the judicial power TO enjoin. when.
by statutory changes, some right ceases %
exist and In cases Of equitable cognizance
which no longer arise" This case does not
fail within either OF the above classes me
right OF property granted 10 the plaintiff by
the constitution Is not a right which has
ceased to exist: nor have the cases in which
an Injunction IS necessary in order TO pre-
vent q multiplicity oe actions ceased to be
cases OF equitable cOgnizance-
It is undoubtedly true that the Legislature.
a. was held in these cases. may alter, OF
regulate. remedies and procedure. legal or
equitable, but IL cannot destroy a substan-
tive remedy nor can il defeat the enforce
ment OF a constitutional right by depriving
the injured party OF the only remedy that the
law can award for its violation This case
IS rnanffsstly one OF equitable cognizance. for
the reasons already stated; and, IN 24th Cal
400 the Supreme Court declared that that
''in mhtters Of equitable eOgnizance powers
graEced by the constitution, cannot be taken
away by legal enactment"
For each and all OF the reasons herein be-
fore stated. am OF the opinion that IN 50 far
as the legislative act In question attempts to
deprive a court OF equity OF the power TO
issue injuuctions in cases OF this character,
l. is unconstitutional and void.
The defendants fherein rely entirely upon
the cOnstitutionalitt OF the legislative provi-
sion in question. As I cannot sustain their
contention IN that regard. IL follows that. in
COns0nance with the views herein expressed
a decree should be entered in favor Of plain
til as PRAYED 10Y. II is accordingly ad1udged
that plaintiff IS entitled to a final decree OF
injunction against the remaining defendants.
in substantial accord with the restraining or
der previously granted herein and counsel VIII
prepare decree accordingly