Arizona republican., 1920-05-01

laid down that "ones' business is prop
 erty and that the right to do business is property right" In support of this contention eight decisions by supreme courts of states were cited. Another proposition was that "A boycott having for its object the destruction Of or ir- reparable damage to. ones business, may be enjoined." Numerous cases were cited in support of that proposi
 tion. the most noted being that of Com pers vs- Bucks Stove and Range Co.,. in which the United States supreme court, after conceding the right of la Dor to organize, said: "But the very fact that it is lawful to form these bodies with multitudes of members. means that they have thereby acquired a vast power in the presence of which the individual is helpless. This power, when unlawfully used against one, can not be met except by his purchasing peace at the cost of submitting to terms which involve the sacrifice of rights protected by the constitution: or by standing on such rights and appeal ing to the preventive powers of a court of equity. When such appeal is made it is the duty of government to pro- tect one against the many as well as the many against one. In the case of an unlawful conspiracy the agreement to act in concert when the signal is published gives the words unfair we don't patronize.' or similar expressions, a force not inhering in the words them selves, and therefore exceeding any possible right of speech which a single individual might have"
 Another contention of the brief is that a statute that provides in effect that ones business shall not be pro- tected by injunction from destruction or irreparable injury at the hands of a certain class of individuals enga ging ir, h0xrontf xx-lniIa 1aax-iro ha remedy by injunction still available to all other property and against all other indi viduals, is unconstitutional and void as amounting to deprivation of property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the law.
 In a Massachusetts case cited the trial court had refused to enjoin the members of one labor union from caus- ing attempting to cause the dis charge of the members of another labor union from employment by threatening or intimidating their employers. The supreme judicial court reversed that decree and held the statute under which this decision was made to be in violation of the fourteenth amendment. The court in thaf case said: ..The right to work is, therefore. property. One cannot be deprived of it by simple man. date of the legislature.
 The brief concerning this decision says: What the Massachusetts court says of the right to work is equally true of the right to carry on business. We have shown that the right to carry on business is property, just as the right to work is property. The right to carry on business can no more be taken away by legislative enactment than can the right to work. If under the four teenth amendment the Massachusetts legislature could not destroy or impair tho right to work by taking away from the laboring man the remedy by in- junction, which was available for the protection of all other property, the Arizona legislature must be equally powserless to destroy or impair in the same manner the right 10 carry on