The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1921-12-20
ACT PROHIBITING
|NJUNCT|ONS is
DECLARED ILLEGAL
Supreme Court Holds That
States Cannot Prohibit
Courts From Enjoining
Strike Pickets

Washington, December 10. - The
states in the exercise of their police
power have no authority through Leg
islative action to prohibit the courts
from enjoining picketing in labor dis
putes, 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 and four it was
held that the lower courts erred in
refusing to consider an application
for an injunction which was sought
to restrain certain methods of picket
ing. Chief Justice Taft delivered the
opinion of the court. Justices Holmes,
Pitney and Brandeis separately stated
dissenting views and Justice Clark
Joined in the opinion announced by
Justice Pitney
The legislative power of a state
can only be exerted in subordination
to the fundamental principles of right
and justice which the guaranty of
due process In the fourteenth amend
ment is intended to preserve" de-
clared the chief justice, land that
purely arbitrary or capricous exer-
else of that power whereby a wrong
full and highly Injurious invasion of
property rights, as here, is practically
sanctioned and the owner stripped of
all real remedy Is wholly at variance
with these principles
Illegally Very Apparent
The chief Justice stated that ille-
gality of the means used in the pres
ent case to drive away customers was
without doubt and fundamental"
This makes this plan an unlawful
conspiracy" the decision continued.
the means used are the libelous and
abusive attacks on the plaintiffs (em-
ployes) reputation, threats :.
of such attacks on would-be custo-
mers, picketing and patrolling of the
entrance of their place of business
with these accompaniment and the
consequent obstruction of free access
thereto, all with the purpose of de-
priving the plaintiffs of their bust
ness, to give operation to a statute
whereby serious losses inflicted by
such unlawful means are in effect
made emediless. The con-
stitution was intended to prevent ex-
perimentation with the fundamental
rights of the individual
The chief justice asserted that hold
ing the Arizona law invalid would not
necessitate holding void Section 20 of
the Clayton act relating to immunity
of labor organizations regarding the
restraint of commerce.
Brandeis' Views Differ
The state court, however, in the
opinion of dissent delivered by JUS
tice Brandeis, should be sustained
because in applying its rule in re-
gard to boycott and peaceful picket
ing Arizona did not deprive the plain
lifts 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 substantive law it was still
free TO restrict the extraordinary
remedies of equity where 1t consid-
cred their exercises to be detrimental
to the public welfare. for such re-
striction was not a denial to the
employers of either due process of
law or equal protection of the laws"
The real object of an injunction,
Justice Brandeis said, was to prevent
injury to persons or tangible prop
erty. and unless there was threat of
violence an injunction should not be
granted in the Arizona case.
The history of the rule governing
contests between employer and en-
ploye in the several English speaking
countries should admonish
US not to declare a rule arbitrary or
unreasonable merely because we are
convinced that it Is fraught with
danger to the public veal. and thus
to close the door TO experiment with
In the law" the justice asserted.