Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1921-12-25

circulation by hem OF thel
libels and epithets applied to EN-
ployes, plaintiffs and customers. and
the threats of injurious consequences
to future customers. all linked togeth-
er in a campaign were an unlawful
and n hurtful nuisance in
re spect of the free access to the plain
tiffs' place of business.
1T was not lawful persuasion or
inducing. 1t was not a mere appeal
10 the sympathetic aid of wOuld-be
customers by simple statement of
the fact of the strike and request
TO withhold patronage. 1t was com
pc ling every customer or would-be
customer TO run the gauntlet of most
uncomfortable publicity. aggressive
and annoying Importantly. libeJous
attacks and fear of injurious conse-
quences illegally inflicted. No won
der that a business of $4,000 was re-
duced to only onefourth of its former
extent Violence could not have been
more effective 1t was moral cOer-
cion by Illegal annoyances and OBJ
struction and it was thus plainly Il
conspiracy.
a Law which opera es to make
lawful such wrong as is described
in plaintiffs complaint can moi he
held valid under the Fourteenth
Amendment.
With these views of the meaning
of the equality clause it does not seem
possible to escape the conclusion
that by the clauses of paragraph 1,464
Of the Revised Statutes of Arizo7a
here relied upon by the defendants
as construed by its Supreme Court,
the plaintiffs have been derived of
the equal protection Of the law.
Tested Right in Property
at is argued that, while the right
to conduct lawful business is pro-
perty, the conditions SURROUNDING that
business, such as regulations of the
state for maintaining peace, good or
der and protection against disorder,
are matters in which no person has
a vested right. The conclusion to
which this inevitably leads in this
case is that the state may withdraw
all protection to a property right by
civil or criminal action for its wrong.
full injury if the injury is not caused
by violence.
at is true that no one has 4 vested
right in anv particular rule of the com
mon law, but it is also true that the
legislative power of a state can only
be eXerted in subordination to the
fundamental principles of right and
justice which the guarantee OF due
process in the Fourteenth Amend.
ment is intended to preserve. and that
a purely arbitrary or capricious exer
else of that power, whereby wrong
full and highly injurious invasion al
property rights. as here, is practically
sanctioned and the owner stripped OF
all real remedy is wholly at variance
with these principles.
'IIt is to be observed that this is
not the mere case Of a peaceful sec.
ondarv boycott, as to the illegality OF
which courts have differed and states
have adopted different statutory pro.
visions. A secondary boycott of this
kind is where many combine to injure
one in his business by coercing per
sons against their will to cease pat
ronizing him by threats of similar in
jury. In such a case the many have
legal right TO withdraw their trade
from third persons and they have the
right to advise third persons of their
intention to do so when each act is
considered singly.
1.-The question in such cases is
whether the moral coercion exercised
over stranger to the original con
troversy by steps in themselves legal
becomes a legal wrong. But here the
iilegality of the means used is without
doubt and fundamental. The means
used are the libelous and abusive at
tacks on the plaintiffs reputation
like attacks on their employers and
customers. Threats of such attacks
on would-be customers, picketing and
pa rolling OF the entrance to their
place of business and the consequent
obstruction of free access thereto
all with the purpose OF deriving tine
i"iutiffs CT their business.
ITO give operation to q statute
whereby serious losses inflicted by
such unlawful means are in effect
made remedyless. is, we think, to dis
regard fundamental rights of liberty
and property and to deprive the per
son suffering the loss of due process
of law.
hiuNt 10 Gqudi FrOtcCtIOn OF tnc Laws
IF. however. contrary to the con
struction which we put on the opin
ion of the Supreme Court of Arizona
it does not withhold from the plain
tiffs all remedy for the wrongs they
suffered. but only the equitable re
lief of injunction. there still remains
the question whether they are thu:
denied the equal protection of the
laws.
Under the Arizona Constitution
the plaintiffs in error would have had
the right to an injunction against
such a campaign as that conducted
by the defendants in error if it had
been directed against the PLAINTIFF
business and property in any kind OF
conspiracy which was not dispute
between employer and former EN-
Dloyes. If the competing restaurants
keepers in Bisbee had inaugurated
such a campaign against the plaintiffs
in error and conducted it with ban
ners and handbills of similar char
acter, an Injunction would necessarily