Arizona republican., 1921-12-20
state Exeeeded Power

'sThe 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 amendment Is intended to preserve declared the chief justice, "and that a purely arbitrary or capricious ex- ercise of that power whereby a wrongful and highly injurious inya- sion Of property rights, as here, is practically sanctioned and the own CTS stripped of all real remedy is wholly at variance with these princf- ples." He stated that illegality of the means used in the present case to drive customers away was with. out doubt and fundamental"
 This makes this plan an un- lawful conspiracy" the decision con- tinued- "The means used are the libelous and abusive attacks on the plaintiffs (employer's) reputation, threats of such attacks on would-be customers, picketing and patrolling of the entrance of their place of business with these accom- paniments and the consequent obs struction to free access thereto, an with the purpose of depriving the plaintiffs of their business to give operation to a statute whereby seri- ous losses inflicted by such unlawful means are in effect made remediless. . The constitution was intend ed to prevent Experimentation with the fundamental rights of the indi- vidual"
 The chief justice asserted that holding the Arizona law invalid would not necessitate holding void section 20 of the Clayton act, relating to immunity of labor organizations from certain.laws prohibiting combi- nations in restraint of commerce.
 Conflict with U. S. Law
 The construction put upon the Ari- zona law by the Arizona supreme court makes that law and the federal statute as different 'in meaning as if they were in wholly different lam guage,' he said.
 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 plaintiffs of property without due process of law or deny them equal protection of the law" and ''because if Arizona was prohibited from adopt ing this rule of substantive law, it was still free to restrict the extraor- dinary remedies of equity where 1t considered their exercise to be detri- mental to the public welfare for such restriction 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 pre- vent injury to persons or tangible property, and, unless there was a | of x~fnIarr1 or iyafr should not be granted in the Arizona case.
 Dissenting Opinion The history of the rule governing contests between employer and em- ploye in the several English-spea 1 countries should admonish us not to declare a rule arbitrary CT ! unreasonable, merely because we are convinced it is fraught. with danger to the public veal. and thus to close | the door to experiment within the law" he asserted
 Justice Pitney's line of reasoning was similar to that of Justice Bran deis, holding it within the police bower of the state to regulate and | control all acts in breach of peace, ! or of violence whether originating in labor disputes or otherwise. He stated that the employers had ample protection of all their rights in the | courts through other measures than | injunction.
 The case arose out of a strike in ! Bisbee, Arizona, in which William | Truax and other employers sought | an injunction to prohibit eormer enl- ployes from picketing. The state i courts dismissed the proceedings. I holding that under the Arizona act Of l 1913. injunctions against picketine were prohibited. In remaEding the case to the Arizona courts for further trial. the supreme court stated thai should the facts be founi as repre-
 sented an injunction should be ls-
 sued.