The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1921-12-24
COURTS MAY
ENJ0IN STRIKE
PICKEIINC,
Decision Of Far Reach
ing Importance e
Handed Down by
United States Su-
prene Court

in the exercise Of heir police pow
er have no authority through leg
islative action TO prohibit the courts
from enjoining picketing in labor
disputes, the supreme court held
today. in decision involving an act
Of the state Of Arizona.
In the opinion. upon which the
court divided five and four, it was
held that the lower courts erred in
refusing to consider an applica-
ton for an injunction which was
sought to restrain certain methods
Of picketing. Chief Justice Taft
delivered the opinion Of tho court
Justices Holmes. Pitney and Bran
deis separately stated dissenting
views and Justice Clarke joined IN
the opinion announced by Jus,ic.
Pitney.
The legislative powers Of state
can only be exerted in subordina-
ton to the fundamental principles
Of right and justice which the guar
anty OF due process in the 1ith
serve" declared the chief Justice.
and that 4 purely arbitrary or ca
pricious exercise OF that power
whereby a wrongful and nightly in
furious invasion Of property rights.
as here is practically sanctioned
and the owner stripped of all real
remedy is wholly at variance with
these principles.
The chief justice stated that ille-
gality Of the means used in the
present case to drive away custom
ers was WITHOUT doubt and fun
damer'al.
"Thi.s makes this plan an un-
lawful conspiracy" the decision
continued, the means used are the
libelous and abusive attacks on the
PLAINTIFFS femployersD reputation.
threats Of such attacks on
would-be customers. picketing and
patroling Of the entrance OF their
place OF business with these ac-
compartments and the consequent
obstruction Of free access thereto.
all with the-purT1se Of depriving
the plaintiffs of their business, TO
give operation to q statute whereby
serious losses inflicted by such un-
. lawful rleanS are in effect made
remedilesS The constitution
| was intended to prevent expert
mentation with the fundamental
rights Of the individual"
The chief justice asserted that
holding the Arizona law invalid
would H. necessitate holding void
Section 90 Of the Clayton act re-
lating to immunity OF labor organ
izations from certain laws prohibit
ing com mbinations in restraint Of
commerce. The construction put
upon the Arizona law by the Ari-
zona supreme court makes that
law and the federal statute rs diff
ferent "in meaning as if they were
in wholly different language" he
suid
The state court. however, in the
opinion Of dissent delivered Ey
Justice Rrandeis. should he sus-
tanned because in applying its
rule in regard to boycott and peace
full picl;eting Arizona did not de-
prive the plaintiffs Of property
without due process of law or deny
them equal protection Of the law,
and "hecause if Arizona was pro-
hibited from adopting this rule OF
substantive law it was still free
TO restrict the extraordinary rene
dies OF equity where it considered
their exercise to be detrimental to
the public welfare. for such restric-
ton was not q denial 10 the employ
erS OF either due process OF law or
equal protection OF the laws"
The real object OF an injunction.
Justice Brandeis sad. was 10 pre-
vent injury TO persons or tangible
properly. and unless there was a
threat Of such violence an !njunc-
tion should not bc granted in the
.AriXona case.
Justice Pitncys line OF reasoning
! in announcing his dissenting views
was similar 10 that of Justice Bran
deis, holding it within the police
power Of the state TO regulate and
control all acts in breach OF peace
or of violence whether originating
in Ia Dor disputes or otherwise. He
stated that the employers had
ample protection Of all their rights
in the courts through other meas
ures than injunction.
The case arose OCT of strike in
Eisbce. Ariz.. in which William
TruaX and other employers sought
an Injunction to prohibit former
employees from picketinG.