Norwich bulletin., 1921-12-20

[ the exercise of their police power hare no authority through legislative ac7roa to prohibit the courts from enioining picketing in labor disputes. the supreme court held today in a decision involving an act of the state of Arizona
 In the opinion. upon which the court divided five to four. t was held that the lower courts erred in refusing to con- slider any application for an injunction which was sought to restrain cer-ain methods of picketing. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the court. Jus tices Holmes. Pitney and Brandeis sep arately stated dissenting views and lws- tice Clarke joined In the opinion an- nounced by Justice Pitney
 The legislative power of a state can only be exerted i7 subordinstion to the fundamental principles of right and jus tice which the guaranty Of due process in the fourteenth amendment is intended 10 preserve. declared the chief justice. and that a purely arbitrary Or carTicious ex- ercise of that power whereby wrongful and highly-injur invasion of prop erty rights. as here. Is practically sane i toned. and the owner stripped Of all remedy is wholly at variance with these principles"
 The chief justice stated that llegaHty Ql nlnF means uEtN III AtE FEtSH1aA AaHT to drive customers away was 'withcut doubt and fundamental"
 This makes this plan -en unlawful conspiracy" the decision continued "the means used are the libelous and abusive attacks on the plaintiffs CemDloyers). rep utation. threats x of such attacks on would be customers. picketiug and pa- trolling Of the entrance of their place of business with these accompaninlentsn and the consequent obstruction to free ac- cess thereto. all with the purposa Of le. priving fthe plaintiffs of their business to give operation to a statute whereby losses inflicted by such unlawful means
 are in effect made remedless Y ' The Constitrtion was intended 10 pre- vent experimentation with the funds-
 mental rights of the individual"
 The chief justice asserted that hold ing the Arizona law srvaiid would no necezsitate holding void section % Of ihi
 Clayton Act relating 10 immunity Of la . fbor organizations from certain laws pro
 hihiting combinations in restraint oi com3aerce. The construction put upoT the Arizona law by the Arizona suprem.
 court makes that law and the fedora statute as different fin meaning as-i they were in wholly different language.
 bs-said.
 The state court. however, in the opin.
 ion of dissent delivered by Justice Bran deis should be sustained. because in ap
 plying it's rule in regard 10 boycott ana peaceful pncketing Arizona did not de
 prive the plaintiffs Of property withou
 due process of law or deny them equa protection of the law" and because - Arizona was p-oSibited from adopi.2; this rule of subsiantive law it was stii free to restrict the extraordinary rem l oF s. ra se..a
 exercise to be detrimental to the pub lie welfare. for such restriction was no a denial to the employers of either du process of law or equal protection of tn
 laws
 The -es, object of an injunction. Jus
 tice Brandeis said. was to prevent in 7, jury to persons or tangible property, an U unless there was threat of such yio : lence an injunction should not be grant II ed in the Arizona case.
 "The history of the rule governing con , tests between employer and employe i :. the several E.lglish-speaking countrie = xNx \ should admonlsh us not 70 dc clare a rule arbitrary or unre2sonabl
 merely because We are convinced tha
 1t is fraught with danger to the pubil
 veal. and thus to close the door to e1 | pertinent within the~law," the justice as serted.
 o Justice iPtneys line of reasoning i Y announcing his dissenting views wa :. similar to that of Justice Brandeis. holt N ing it within the police powers of tn
 state to regulate and control all acts , breach of peace. or of violence wheths . originating in labor disputes or other > wise. He stated that the employers ha <, ample protection of ail their rights . the courts through other measures tha
 injunction.
 The case arose out of a strike in Bii bee, Arizona, in which William Trua .s and other employers sought an injunl ,e ton to prohibit former employees frol f picketing. The state courts dismisse : the proceedings, holding that under u
 Arizona t,of 1913 injunctions again
 picketing were prohibited In remsnt 10 ing the, case to the Arizona courts fc 10 further trial, the supreme court statc ,d that should the facts be found as repr l. scented an injunction should be issued