Arizona republican., 1921-12-20

and Alexander Murray, the former a member of the firm of E.llinwood & Ross of Bisbee, for the plaintiffs The application for the injunction was denied and an appeal was taken to tlle supreme court of the state which affirmed the order of the lower court.
 Of National Interest
 It was taken on error to the su- preme court of the United states for the October term of 1919 and brief prepared by Messrs. Ellinwood, Ross and Matthews was presented. The case was argued by Mir. Mat thews and since then has attracted the most earnest attention of large employers throughout the country, for it was evident that the principle of the boycott was to be definitely sustained or overthrown.
 The specification of errors included the failure of the supreme court of this state to declare paragraph 1464 Of the statutes unconstitutional be- cause it had operated to deprive the plaintiffs in error of their property without process of law and denied to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws of the state. The prfn- ciples laid down by the plaintiffs were that ones business is property and his right to do business, prop erty right; boycott having for its object the destruction of or ire parable injury to ones business may be enjoined; a statute which provides in effect that ones business shall, not be protected by injunction from destruction or irreparable injury at the hands of a certain class of in dividuals engaging in g, boycott while leaving the remedy by in- junction available to all other prop erty owners and against all other in dividuals, is unconstitutional and void, as amounting to a deprivation of property without due process of law and denial of the equal protec- tion of the laws.
 Argued Last Year
 In support of these principles nearly fifty decisions were cited. The case was argued more than a year ago and it was expected that an opinion would be handed down last winter or spring.
 But on account of the death of Chief Justice White a re e-opening of the case became necessary and for the October term of this year a sup plemental brief was filed for the
 
 subject of the secondary boycott" declaring that the term boycott" wherever used in the brief previously filed by the plaintiffs, was used in the same sense and was intended to convey the same meaning as the su- preme court, in the Duplex Printing company case, had attributed to the term secondary boycott The brief then referred to some 97 decisions against boycotts. which were more accurately secondary boycotts," in that they Involved coercive measures
 Peaceful Picketing Misnomer
 These measures, it was contended were necessarily coercive, quoting from the case of the Atchison Rail- way versus Gee: There is and can be no such thing as peaceful picket ing any more than there ecan be chaste vulgarity or peaceful mob ping or lawful lynching. When men want to converse or persuade they do not organize picket line. When they only want to see who are at work. they go and see, and then leave, and disturb no one physically or men tally. But such picketing as is dis- played in the case at bar by the evf- dence does, and is intended to, annoy and jntimidate.''
 The brief, after reciting the opinion