Great Falls tribune., 1922-01-27

restaurant boycott situation like
the shirt on the back. It will doubt
less be of great interest, both to
the union strikers and the boycotted
restaurants. The facts are as fol-
lows. We quote from Chief JUS
tice Taft's opinion:
"In April, 1916, dispute arose
between the plaintiffs and the de-
PENDANTS union concerning the
terms and conditions Of employ
ment Of the members Of the union.
The plaintiff refused to yield to
! the terms of the union, which there
upon ordered a strike of those of
its members which were in the
plaintiffs employ. To win the
strike and coerce and compe! the
plaintiffs to comply with the de-
mands of the union, the defendants,
and others unknown to the plain
tiffs, entered into a conspiracy and
boycott to injure plaintiffs in their
restaurant and restaurant business,
by inducing plaintiffs customers
and others, heretofore we'll and
favorably disposed, to cease to pa
tronize or trade with plaintiffs.
The method of inducing was set
out at length, and included picket
ing, displaying banners, advertis-
ing the strike, denouncing plain
tiffs as unfair" to the union, and
appealing to customers to stay
away from the English Kitchen and
circulating handbills containing
abusive and libelous charges against
plaintiffs, their employees and their
patrons, and intimation of injury
to future patrons. Copies of the
handbills were set forth in exhibits
made part of the complaint. In
consequence of defendants acts
many customers were induced to
cease from patronizing plaintiffs,
and their daily receipts which had
been in excess of the sum Of $156
were reduced to SIS. The COM
plant AYERS that if the acts were
continued, the business would be
entirely destroyed, and the plain
tiff would suffer great and irrepar-
able injury; that for the plaintiff
to seek to recover damages would
involve a multiplicity of suits !;
that all the defendants were insolv-
ent, and would be unable to re-
spond in damages for any injury
resulting from their acts, and the
plaintiffs were therefore without
any adequate remedy at law"
The Arizona statute prohibited
the granting of any injunctions or
restraining orders in labor disputes
and the district court and supreme
court of Arizona denied such relief
The supreme court Of the United
! States in the Taft decision decides
that the Arizona courts were
wrong because the acts OF the de-
PENDANTS violated the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States
constitution in that the plaintiffs
property was taken without due
process of law, and further that
the plaintiffs were denied the equal
protection Of law. The clause to
which Judge Taft refers in the
constitution, reads as follows
Nor shall any state deprive any
person Of life, liberty, property
without due process of law, or deny
to any person within its jurisdic.
ton the equal protection Of the
laws" The majority opinion holds
that the Arizona law as interpreted
by the supreme court violated botf
of these provisions and its decision
is overruled and the case trans
mitted for action in accord with
the opinion Of the federal supreme
court.
The court divided in the opinion
by to 4. ......... ......
IF we correctly understand thi:
decision, it lays down the law O.
the land to be that banner boycott
such as we are accustomed to i,
Great Falls and Montana, are ii
contradiction of the rights of th'
citizen as guaranteed in the Four