Evening journal., 1922-01-18
(From Law and Labor

"A suit by an employe who seeks
to hold a labor union liable for seek
ing his discharge by threatening to
strike unless his employer discharges
him, stands on a different footing
from a mere effort by a labor union
to persuade employees to leave their
employment. There are in such a
combination against an employe. the
suggestions of coercion, attempted
monopoly, deprivation OF livelihood
and remoteness OF the legal pur-
pose OF the union to better its mem
bers' condition. not present in a case
like the present"
In the case OF Truax vs.. Corri-
gan. decided December 18th the
court had before it the broad ques-
ton Of the power OF the State Of
Arizona 10 deprive a business OF pro-
lection as against a labor combina-
ton to injure that business by picket
ing, libelous attacks. the carrying OF
banners and the annoyance of Gus
toners. The Supreme. Court OF
Arizona had given the anti-injunc-
tion statute an Interpretation which
'hAAAlNu hAA VI AAtr' h1A1f anu his
Interpretation was binding upon the
United States Supreme Court on
appeal.
Concerning that statute, the su-
preme Court said.
1. "A law which operates TO make
lawful such a wrong as Is described
in plaintiffs complaint, deprives the
owner Of the business and the prem
ises of his property without due ,pro-
cess, and cannot be held valid under
the Fourteenth Amendment" BY
this declaration the Supreme Court
made clear that no State Legislature
could legalize acts OF interference OF
the kind which we're involved in this
case. Referring to a contrary con-
tention the court said: The con-
clusion to which this inevitably leads
in this case Is that the State may
withdraw all protection to a property
right by civil or criminal action for
its wrongful injury II the injury is
not caused by violence. 1t is
true that no one has a vested right
in any particular rule OF the COM
mon law, but II Is also true that the
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 Amend
ment is Intended to preserve, and
that a purely arbitrary or capricious
exercise Of that power whereby a
wrongful and highly Injurious inva-
sion OF property rights, as here, is
practically sanctioned and the owner
stripped OF all real remedy, is wholly
at variance with those principles.
2. In reaching the conclusion that
this law was unconstitutional, II con-
strued as a legalization OF the acts
describedh the court was careful to
point out that the acts were inher-
entity illegal and not limited to ordi-
nary economic coercion such as Is
sometimes involved in a strike or
boycott. The court said;
1T is to be observed that this is
not the mere case of a peaceful sec
ondary boycott as TO the illegality OF
which courts have differed and
states have adopted different statu-
tory provisions. A secondary boy
colt OF this kind is where many COM
blne to injure one in his business by
coerclng third persons against their
will to cease patronizing him By
threats OF similar injury. In such
case the many have a legal right tc
withdraw their trade from the one
they have the legal right to withdraw
their trade from third persons, ant