The Washington herald., 1921-12-20
SUPREME COURT
UPSETS ARIZONA
PlCKETINCLAW
Decides Injunctions May
Be Issued Where Any
Violence Exists.
RIGHTS VIOLATED
Libelous Attacks on Firms
Reputation Held to Be
Conspiracy.

The Supreme Court Of the United
States, IN . new decision, has re-
fterated its declaration that violent
tactics must mot accompany picket
ing in labor disputes, and that
where violence exists, it is~the duty
Of the courts to issue injunctions.
The decision is one more step in
The direction of establishing prece-
dents to govern in Industrial war
fare.
Upsets Arizona Law.
In making its decision, the court
upset section of the Arizona state
law, designed to protect labor
unions against misuse of the injunc-
uon, and designed to legalize pick
eting. At the same time. the court
reversed a decision of the Arizona
state Supreme Court.
The court held that the State law
IN question violated the Fourteenth
amendment to the Federal Constitu
uon' In that it deprived an owner
OF property. and allowed him no re-
dress at law.
The case was that of William
IrusS, Of Bisbee, Ariz.. against a
cooks and walters union. William
TruaX was the name under which a
restaurant was operated, In which a
Strlke occurred Striking workers
resorted to picketing. and succeeded
IN reducing the business of the res
taurant from more than $4,000 an
nuallv to less than a fourth of that
amount.
. Surname
held that, under the statute, loss
may be inflicted upon. the plaintiffs
property and business by picket
ing in any form IL violence be not
used. and that because no violence
was shown or claimed the campaign
carried on, as described. did not
unlawfully invade complairants'
rights" said the courts decision.
Then ii is explained WHY. in the
courts opinion, rights were vio-
lated by the tactics employed.
: T. Is UnlawfuI Conspiracy.
The illegality of the means used
TO drive away customers is without
doubt and fundamental This
makes the plan an unlawful con-
spiracy. The means used are the
Hbelous and abusive attacks on the
plaintiffs reputation, like attack,
on their employees and customers,
threats Of such attacks on would
q be customers, picketins and patrol
ing Of the entrance to their place
of business with these accountant
ments, and the consequent obstruc-
ton OF free access thereto. all with
the purpose Of depriving the plain
tiffs of their business
ITO give operation to a statut.
whereby serious losses inflicted by
such unlawful means are in effect
made remediless is. we think. Ia
disregard fundamental rights OF
liberty and property and to de-
prive the person suffering the loss
Of due process sof law"
Speaking of the Fourt.en,b
amendment. the court had this TO
say:
The guaranty was aimed at nm
due favor and Individual or class
privilege on the one hand, and at
hostile discrimination or the on
preston of inequality on the other.
1t. sought an equality of treatment
of ali persons under similar circum-
stances" -
Among the devices utilized in III.
picketing campaign were hsndbilIs
and banners, claiming unfairness
patrolling the front of the res
-taurant urging. people not to NAT
ronize II; characterfzing the en-
/ ploys OF the restaurant as "scab
Mexica nlabor:" charging that