Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1921-12-20
TAI 7 RENDERS
DECISION IN
ARIZONA CASE
Four Justices Concur
and Four Dissent F rom
Opinion Of the Chief.
Holmes, Brandeis, Pit
ney Separately Give
Views in Opposition.

Washington, Dec. 19.-The states in
the exercise of their police powers
have no authority through legislative
action to prohibit the courts from en-
Joining picketing in labor disputes, the
supreme court held Monday in a de-
csion involving an act Of the state
of Arizona.
In the opinion, upon which the court
divided five to four, it was held that
the lower courts erred IN refusing TO
consider an application for an lnJunc..
picketing. Chief Justice Taft delivered
the opinion of the court. justices
Holmes, Pitney and Brandeis separate
ly stated dissenting views and Justice
Clarke joined III the opinion announced
by Justice Pitney.
'"The legislative power of state can
only be exerted in subordination to the
fundamental principles of right and
justice which the guaranty OF due proc
ess in the fourteenth amendment Is
intended to preserve declared the
chief justice. '.and that purely arbl-
trary or capricious exercise of that
power whereby a wrongful and highly
Injurious invasion of property rights
as here, is practically sanctioned, ana
the owner stripped of all right remedy
is wholly at variance with these prin-
ciples."
Conspiracy, He Says.
The chief justice stated that illegal
ity of the means used in the present
case to drive customers away was
without doubt and fundamental.
This makes this plan an unlawful
conspiracy" the decision continued.
"rThe means used are libelous and abuS-
i've attacks on the plaintiffs (employ-
ers) reputation, threats
of such attacks on would-be custom
ers, picketing and patrolling of the en-
trance of their place of business with
these Accomplishments and the conSe-
nuent obstruction to free access there
to, all with the purpose OF deprlylng
the plaintiffs of their business to give
operation to statute whereby serious
losses inflicted by such unlawful means
are in effect made remediless.
The constitution was intended to pre-
vent experimentation with the funda-
mental rights Of the individual"
The chief Justice asserted that hold
the Arizona law invalid would not ne
cessitate holding void section 20 of the
Clayton act, relating to immunity OF
labor organizations from certain laws
prohibiting combinations in restraint
of commerce.
Construction Different.
The construction put upon the Ari-
zona law by the Arizona supreme
court makes that law and the federal
statute as different lin meaning as if
they were in wholly different Ian
guages," he said.
The state court. however, in the
opinion of dissent delivered by Justice
Brandeis, should be sustained be
cause in applying its rule in regard to
boycott and peaceful picketing, Ari
zona did not deprive the plaintiffs of
property without due process of law or
deny them equal protection of the law,
and because if Arizona was prohibited
from adopting this rule of substanta
tive law it was still free to restrict
the extraordinary remedies of equity
where it considered their exercise to
be detrimental to the public welfare,
for such restriction was not denial
to the employers of either due process
of law or equal protection of the law"
The real object of an injunction,
Justice Brandeis said was to prevent
injury to persons or tangible property,
and unless there was threat of such
violence an injunction should not be
granted in the Arizona case.