Tombstone epitaph., 1918-12-22
PickETING IS LEGAL.
 CLAIMS ARIZONA COURT


 court of Arizona has decided that 1 peaceful picketing" is legal and that the state statute permitting such ac- ton stands. The action at issue was the famous Bill Truax case" Truax. a Bisbee restaurant keeper. sought to with his business by members of the Bisbee cooks and walters union and the Bisbee district trades assembly, which. he alleged. had entered into a conspiracy 10 ruin his business by trying to keep prospective patrons from entering his ulace This accur- red more than six months prior to the Bisbee deportation.
 The decision just given is written by Justice C. J Cunningham and par ticipaJei in by Justice John Wilson Ross Justice Henry D Ross was ab- sent on account of sickness Tie de ciding justices both are from Cochise county. where the action was brough, and where it was decided for the de fendants in the superior court.
 The applicants contended that the picke,ing law was unconstitutional. in that it denies the plaintiffs of proper " without due process Of law and de nies to the plaintiffs the equal pro lection of the law
 Employers Runs Own Business
 Judge Cunningham. in sustaining the judgment of the lower court and the constitutionality of the Arizona act. observed: The plaintiffs had the unprecedented right to any terms an conditions of employment of servants in their business as they might choose. No one has a right 10 inter. fere with the private management of mans business. If he refuses to employ union members or refuses 10 recognize union conditions of employ ment, that is his affair altogether. and his rights cannot be in:ersered with.
 ''I; any person conducting a busi. ness elects to disregard the demands of his employees and such employees strike for that reason. no right of the employer is violated if the striking employees advertise the cause of the strike If the publicity given the facts cause loss, such loss is attrib- utable 10 the employer and his busi- ness methods as the proximate cause Of the loss to him.
 Union Can Advertise Facts
 If the employer has clear legal right to refuse 10 pay a rate of wages Ndemanded by labor union for its members and refuses to allow such membesr of such union the conditions of employment-hours of work-de- manded by the union, which every en- , ployer has and must have the right 10 refuse. then it follows. naturally and logically. such employer may ' nd rtasb 1x.- enc. make known to his patrons, GUS toners and the public at large, his at. titlde in the matter. if he desires. Those refused employment because of such attitude of the employer cannot justly complain of the publicity given the dispute by the employer a party thereto.
 Why should the employer be heard 10 question the right Of the other par " to the dispute to advertise the fac, of the unsettled condition of the dis pute? If either party to a labor dis. pute has right to call upon the courts to restrain the other party to such dispute from advertising the ex. istence Of such dispute. then both parties have that right It is inferred that property rights are not invaded by picketing unless the picketing in terferes with a free conduct of busi. ness. In such a case the violence in volvei could be restrained.
 It's Peaceful Picketins It, therefore. was concluded by the court that the statute in itself may be considered a legal one ana that. as there was no violence alleged against the defendants. the laws definition of peaceful picketing" was not passed. There has been intimation that the matter now will be taken to the su. preme court of the United States for determination on constitutional