New-York tribune., 1921-12-20
court Denies
State Right to
Shield Pickets
Chief Justice Taft Holds
Prohibition of Injunc-
tons in Labor Disputes
illegal Legislative Action
Four Dissenting Opinions
grandeis Insists Arizon Il
Acted Within Rights in
APPLYING Boycott Rule

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 - The
,.s.es in she exerci,e of their police
roUsr have no authority through legis-
i..;ye action to prohibit the courts
.rom enjeining ricketing in labor dis
,s.es. the Supreme Court held today
!, decision involving an act of the
STATE OF Arizona.
IN tire opinion. upon which the court
ss.aed ; to 1, it WAS held that the
awcr courts erred in refusing to con-
s;ser anv application for an injunction
xhich was sought to restrain certain
methods ef picketing. Chief Justice
TAFT delivered the opinion OF the court.
Jastices Holmes, Pitney and Brandeis
ssparate'v gave dissenting views and
Justice Clarke joined in the opinion an
nounced by Justice Pitney.
sThe legislative power of a state can
orlv be exerted in subordination to the
xardamental principles of right and
iustice which the guaranty of due pro-
cess in the Fourteenth Amendment is
Intended to preserve" declared the Chief
Justice, and purely arbitrary or
caDricious exercise of that power
whereby a wrongful and highly injuri-
aus invasion of property rights. as
here is practically sanctioned. and the
Jwner stripped OF all remedy, is wholly
4 variance with these principles"
Held Unlawful Conspiracy
!
Of the means used in the present case
10 drive customers away was without
doubt and fundamental"
'This makes this plan an unlawful
conspiracy the decision continued
"The means used are the hbelous and
abusive attacks on the plaintiffs tenn
Dloyers') reputation. threats
az such attacks on would be customers,
picketing and patrolling of the en-
trance OF their place of business with
these accomplishments and the conse-
dgent obstruction to free access there
70, all with the purpose of depriving
the plaintiffs Of their business and to
give operation to I statute whereby
seTi0us losses inflicted by such unlaw-
ful means are in effect made remedl-
lsss. The constitution was
intended to prevent experimentation
vi.h the fundamental rights of the in
diyidual'
TIE Chief Justice asserted that hold
.ng the Arizona Jaw invalid would not
EeceSsitate holding void Section 20 OF
the Clayton act relating to immunity
q labor organizations from certain
iaws prohibiting combinations in re-
s-ralnt of commerce. The construction
nj Upon the Arizona law by the Ari-
zoHa Suoreme Court makes that law
and tae Federal statute as different ''in
s1anlng as i they were in wholly d1t-
fssent language he said.
Justice Brandeis Dissents
The state court. however" in the
opinion Of dissent delivered by Justice
Brsndeis. should he sustained. because
IN applying its rule in regard to boy
eost and peaceful pcketing, Arizona
aid not deprive the plaintiffs of prop
erty without due process of law or
oeny them equal protection of the law
and because if Arizona was prohibited
rom adopting this rule Of substantive
law it was still free to restrict the
extraordinary remedies of equity where
It considered their exercise to be detrj-
mental to the public welfare, for such
restriction was not denial to the en-
ployers of either due process Of law
or equal protection of the laws
The case arose out of strike in
bsbee, Ariz., in which William Truax
and other employers sought an iniunc-
ton to prohibit former employees from
picketing. The state courts dismissed
the proceedings, holding that under
a Arrz
against picketing were prohibited. In
remanding the case to the Arizona
courts for further trial the Supreme
Court said that should the facts be
loand as represented an injunction
shnnld he isu,,nd