Bisbee daily review. [volume] (Bisbee, Ariz.) 1901-1971, 1921-12-25

pTlCiouSlN, nut upon ihduiIy, anu Ttii- !
ders Judgment only after trial. so
that every citizen shall hold his life.
liberty. property and immunities I'M
der the protection of the general
rules which govern society. It, of
course, aims to secure equality of law
in the sense that it makes a required
minimum of protection for every !
ones right of life, liberty and proper
ty. which the congress or the legis-
lature may not withhold.
'|AiI Equal Before the Law"
"Our whole system of law is predi- |
Gated on the general fundamental !
principle of equality of application OF
the law. All men are equal heFnrc |
the law this is government of laws /
and not of men, no man is above the
law are all maxims showing the |
spirit in which legislatures, exacn- |
tives and courts are expected tOl
make, rule and apply laws. Pint the
trainers ana adOpters of his amend
ment were rot content to depend on
mere minimum secured by the due
process clause. or mon the spirit az /
equality which might not BE- insisted
on by locGl public opinion. They.
therefore, embodied that spirit IN
SPECIFIC guarantee.
The guarantee was aimed AT undue
favor and individual or class privilege
or the one hand and at hostile dis
elimination, or the oppression of in
Cuuality, on the other Ii sought an
equality of treatment of all persons.
even though all enjoyed the protec-
ticn of due process.
'If. as claimed, the legislature has
full discretion to grant or withhold
equitable relief in any classes of
cases, indeed, to take away from its
courts all equity ana leave those who
are wronged to suits at law or to pro-
lection by cne criminal law, the legis
lature has tho same power i'll respect
to the declaI ariun OF crimes. Sup
pose the Legislature of the state were
to provide that such acts as were
here committed by defendants
wit, the picketing or patrolling Of the
sidewalk and street in front of the
store or business house IF any person
and the use of handbills of an abus-
i've and libelous character against the
owner and present and future custom
ers. with intent to iniure the business
of the owner-should be public
nuisance and be punishable by fine
and Imprisonment, and were to OK
| cept ex-employes from its provisions.
/ Is it not clear that any defendant
could escape punishment under it on
the ground that the statute violated
the equality clause of the Fourteenth
, Amendment?
1T is urged that in holding Para
l,graph 1.464 invalid. we are in effect
holding invalid Section 90 of the Clay
ton act. OF course, we are not doing
so. In the first place. the equality
| clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
does not apply to congressional, but
only to state action. In the second
place. Section 90 of the Clayton act
| never has been construed or applied
as the Supreme Court of Arizona has
construed and applied Paragraph
1,464 in this case.
I'VE conclude that the demurrer in
this case should have been overruled
the defendants required to answer
and that if the evidence sustains the
averments of the complaint, an ia
junction should issue as prayed.
Holds Original Injunction Law Stand
objection is made to this conclu
sion on the ground that as we hold
certain clauses of Paragraph 1.464 of
the Arizona code, as construed, in
| valid, they cannot be separated from
Paragraph 1,456. which must also be
| held invalid, and then there Is no
law in Arizona authorizing an injunc-
| ton in this or any case. Paragraph
| 1,456 has been the statute law of Ari
| IONA, state and territory, since 1901.
| 1t was first adopted in the code of
the territory of 1901. 1t was contin-
| ued in force by virtue of the new
| Constitution OF Arizona adopted by
the people in 1902, which merely
| changed the name of the court upon
whose general equity jurisdiction was
conferred from the district court to
! the superior court. and which pro-
vided that the authority, Jurisdiction,
practice and procedure Of the dis
] trict courts should continue in force
and apply and govern superior courts
until altered or repealed.
'.AriZona came into the Union
I with this constitution Feb. IA, 1912.
At the session of 1912 provision was
made for revision and modification OF
the laws. The present code was
adopted by the legislature at it's third
! special session of 1913.
Section 1,464 was passed, as the
code itself states, at the second ses-
sion of 1913. Thus Paragraph 1.464
was an amendment to Paragraph
LABS, and was included with the
| original section in theacode revision
of 1913. To invalidate Paragraph
1,456 we must assume that had the
legislature known that the clauses of
Paragraph 1.464 here involved, con-
strued as the Arizona supreme court
has construed them, were unconsti-
tutional, it would have repealed all
the existing law comforting the equit-
able power of Injunction in its first
instance on courts of general juris-
diction. We cannot make this as
sumption. The exception introduced
by amendment to Paragraph 1,456
proving invalid the original law
stands without the amendatory ex-
ception.
"The judgment of the Supreme
Court of Arizona is reversed and the