*1 3, 1947.] Bank. Oct. 4733. In No. [Crim. Corpus. Habeas BLANEY, on T. re W. Todd,
Clarence E. John C. T. Stevenson Huston Car- lyle for Petitioner. *2 Gilbert,
Robert Hildebrand, McLeod, W. &Bills Robert W. Kenny, Attorney General, Linn, Clarence A. Assistant Attor- ney General, and Tobriner & Lazarus, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner. Howser, Attorney N. (Los Angeles),
Fred District Jere J. Sullivan, Deputy Attorney, Respondent. District for Rowland, Parsons, O’Melveny Russell
Gilford G. E. & Myers, Mitchell, Carman, Jr., I. Homer W. B. Deane F. Johnson, Tuttle, Cornell, & Bissinger, Tuttle C. W. E. L. H. Eugene Prince, Wideldnd, Mason, M. Richard E. Burton Dooling, Watkins, Latham C. W. & J. L. Goddard and Olive Boswell, Respondent. Amici E. as Curiae on behalf of
CARTER, J. pro- Prior to the commencement of this ceeding, Ramser, doing H. Upholstery one C. business as the Supply Company, Ramser, prose- hereinafter referred to as damages injunctive cuted an action for relief in the Angeles County against Superior Court of Los various labor Blaney, representative unions, W. T. a member business Drivers, Helper’s Storage of Van and Furniture Packers and (hereinafter referred to as Van Local Union No. Stor- firms who age Union), of the unions. Various business one labor, suppliers, carriers or employed and who were either dealers) (hereinafter referred of Ramser to customers manufactures parties were made defendants. Ramser fur- go into furniture and sells assembles commodities Storage Van Union were supplies. The members of niture demanding shop contract. a closed picketing Ramser issued, generally forbid- restraining was temporary A order aimed at doing acts were ding Blaney from various dealing Ramser. refrain from persuading the dealers to mem- employees were of Ramser’s disputed whether most engaged in inter- Ramser union and whether bers of the here significance are of. no commerce, those matters state but restraining order. scope the limited in view of Blaney his re- restraining order commanded union to doing any following: attempting from to do frain or “ Combining performing (a) agreeing or cease or to cause to performing any any employee to cease [the dealers] any them, or [dealers], or for or service services said any causing agreeing threatening cause cause or or any them, pur- to such or for injury loss or [dealers] them inducing compelling any or pose of or such [dealers] furnishing doing or refrain from business with [Ramser] any supplies business, purchasing any or [Ramser] carrying, receiving [Ramser], shipping, from or supplies or any freight [Ramser]; or or merchandise for
“(b) any way carrying effectuating any out or such any agreement, way giving any or in notices or combination any or tending intended or to effectuate making threats or any carry agreement; out Provided, however, nothing
“(c) herein is intended prohibit peaceful picketing be construed to when or shall pursuant carrying done same agreement en herein restrained or out combination joined.” *3 why therefor an order to cause application
After show Blaney punished not for violation of the restrain- should be contempt guilty issued and he found ing order was was county jail. judgment of con- committed to the and injunctive tempt recites that Ramser’s action was to secure Blaney legislative by act relief violation 3, 1942), people a referendum of the November (approved cargo (Lab. Code, commonly referred the “hot law.” to as 623.) He 1131-1136, as added ch. seeks Stats. §§ corpus. court by way judgment of habeas relief restraining fol- order as six counts violation of found Ramser that Blaney stated a customer of (1) that lows: picket him the union would if merchandise from accepted it (2) that similar state- boycott plant products; and and its customers and also made another of Ramser’s ments were the cus- informed that and labor that would picket line was selling a products “unfair” tomer was Blaney of Ramser he supplier (3) that told established; a strike at Ramser’s him because there was supply must pick- Ramser were to be products all place business (4) that Blaney’s demand; supplier complied with eted. The conduct similar to the above was followed as to another of customers; (5) Ramser’s Blaney that Railway told Ex- press Agency, Inc., accepted that if it shipment products for of Ramser it picketed; (6) would be that the Pacific Southern Company, a carrier, common per- was informed that if it mitted Ramser freight cars, products to unload from its shipped had been him, picketed. would be Thus it appears Blaney agreed with the his other members of union to cause and employees threaten to cause of the deal- ers to cease performing doing services, and the dealers from business with Ramser; Blaney, that on certain dates fur- therance of agreement, stated to Ramser’s dealers that if they accepted they pick- Ramser’s merchandise also would eted and “tied up” picketing boycotting; that some picketed, claiming dealing dealers were pickets Ramser organized was unfair to labor and the like. cargo
The “hot cargo’ act” reads: “The ‘hot ‘sec- ondary boycott’ hereby (Lab. declared to be unlawful.” Code, 1131.) cargo’ “As used in chapter, this ‘hot means § any agreement resulting combination or in a refusal em- ployees goods for perform any handle or to services employer dispute employer because of a between some other employees organization any his or a labor or combination agreement or resulting by employers in a refusal to handle goods perform any or employer services for because another agreement of an employer between such other and his em- ployees organization. or a labor “ (b) [‘Secondary boycott.’] chapter, As used ‘sec ondary boycott’ any agreement means combination or performing, any cease or to employee perform cause to cease ing any any employer, any services or to cause loss or injury employer, employees, to such pur or to his for the pose inducing compelling employer or to refrain doing with, handling any from products business other between latter and because of employees organization or a labor combination *4 agreement any performing, employer or to cease or to cause performing any employer, for another or services cease any employer, injury to cause loss or to such other or to his inducing compelling of or employees, for doing with, refrain from business or han other an any employer, other because of dling products of 647 agreement employees between latter and his or a labor organization. organization.’] chapter, in this “(c) As used [‘Labor kind, any any or organization’ organization means of
‘labor plan, any agency employee committee or representation or pur exists for the employees participate in which and which dealing employers concern pose, part, in whole or with pay, hours of ing grievances, disputes, wages, labor rates employment, or conditions of work. chapter, term
“(d) [‘Employer.’] used in this As any person acting in the interest of ‘employer’ includes indirectly any directly association of em- employer, or ployers, including growers and other hirers of labor. chapter, the term
“(e) [‘Employee.’] As used any any person who works for ‘employee’ includes natural 1134.) person compensation.” (Lab. Code, for § directly in- “Any act, agreement which or combination or any directly compels a violation of causes, induces or any loss, injury or provisions chapter, inflicts of this anyone refusal to violate damage on because of his (Lab. Code, provisions chapter be unlawful.” of this shall injunctive damages 1132.) made relief and Provision is § (Lab. Code, injured by of the statute. person to a a violation 1133.) § protection
The identification of
constitutional
assembly,
publiciz
speech, press and
right of free
through
medium of
ing
disputes
problems
otherwise, has been established.
picketing, boycotting and
315, 89 L.Ed.
(Thomas
Collins, 323
516
S.Ct.
v.
U.S.
[65
Angelos, 320
293
v.
U.S.
Union, Local 302
430]; Cafeteria
Board,
Employees’ Local v.
58];
88 L.Ed.
Hotel
S.Ct.
[64
Bakery
;
Drivers’
86 L.Ed.
315
437
S.Ct.
U.S.
946]
[62
;
816, 86 L.Ed.
Wohl, 315
769
S.Ct.
1178]
Local v.
[62
Cafe,
ship Corp., 25
721,
329,
Cal.2d
729-730
P.2d
160 A.L.R.
[155
;
Joaquin
Council,
Emde v.
County
San
etc.
23 Cal.2d
900]
146, 154,
20,
People Dail,
161
P.2d
150
916];
A.L.R.
v.
[143
22
Magill
Bldg.
651
828];
Cal.2d
P.2d
Bros. v.
Serv
[140
Union,
Bell,
In;
ice etc.
Cal.2d
P.2d
re
[127
542]
Long
22];
19 Cal.2d
P.2d
v.
Beach Local
Steiner
[122
McKay
;
No.
controversy is his between concerted labor to which the Regardless of the area boycotting be constitu activity, picketing dis above of the case at bar as tionally limited, and the facts It stand. closed, here involved cannot the statute vague sweeping, to it restraining pursuant issued are too order permits prior censorship matters and uncertain. protected by guarantee of free undeniably the constitutional (See Minnesota, 283 speech press. Near v. enjoinable 1357].) 625, 75 It makes the mere resulting in refusal em agreement combination or goods employer their because a dis ployees to handle employer pute employees other between some organization. (Lab. Code, 1134(a).) that Under § merely provision group employees should or a union agree employers to give publicity disputes to their with their newspaper, agreement publicity if re radio or in persuading employees sults of some other lie. employer, injunction their will withhold services from words, dis publicize In other their labor freedom putes agree penalized. This result or even do so likely provision agreement more made even *7 indirectly withholding of services amounts which induces the Code, 1132.) Likewise, (Lab. under to an unlawful act. § Code, 1134(b)) boycott provision (Lab. secondary the § any employee performing agreement to cease to cause mere employer in the to an employer for an cause services dispute for dealing employer in the dispute cease with the to upon pressure the latter is denounced. bringing purpose agree terms mere encompassed within its There also per dispute with the publicize to a labor ment employer dealing with cease suading employees to other refrain persuasion to dispute. The inducement or in the merely by advising accomplished dealing may be from requesting him to refrain from controversy dealer right realm of the beyond within the dealing, doubt a matter object, the intermediate Merely because speech. free against grievance being to correct objective object (the main exists), induce whom the employer with exerting the economic dealers) to assist (the persons third Nor is the com unlawful aim. not create pressure, does dispute the existence facts of munication
651
(the dealers)
persuading
them
them to withhold their
business,
furthering
an unlawful
campaign
means of
against
controversy
A
whom the
exists.
broadly
statute
loosely
places
so
drawn—which
it within
grant injunctive relief,
of a court to
its
may
right
terms
be used to strike down the
freedom
speech,
prior
upon
squarely
is a
falls
restraint
recently
within the
court.
In In re
rule
declared
Bell,
22],
652 ’ (Thornhill of Alabama, supra,
dissemination ideas. v. 97; Hague supra; v. C.I.O., Griffin, supra; v. Lovell v. Schneider State, supra.) Language prohibiting may conduct that prohibited reasonably and conduct that not no affords guilt ascertainable standard and is therefore too uncertain of and vague (Stromberg California, supra, v. be enforced. 369-370; Lowry, 242, v. 301 Herndon U.S. 261-263 S.Ct. [57 Jersey, 732, 1066]; 81 L.Ed. Lanzetta v. 306 451 New U.S. Oregon, 299 ; Jonge 83 L.Ed. De v. S.Ct. [59 888] 278]; Hague C.I.O., supra; 81 v. L.Ed. State, supra; Harder, Cal.App.2d Schneider v. In re Territory Anduha, P.2d Hawaii 304]; F.2d of (Emphasis in Thorn 171.)”. added.) Likewise, it is said Alabama, 1093], hill urges “The concerning denouncing picketing: a State statute deprivation petitioner may complain not of of rights his It would not that on this record but own. follow petitioner complain sweeping regulations of could not challenged. here testing the section on its
“There is a further reason for particular case has power of face. Proof the abuse requisite never for attack on constitution- been deemed a ality the dissemination purporting of a to license statute light interpreted in the (Citations.) ideas. The eases when upon any rule not based of their facts indicate that the refused application the license would be assumption that for regula- unlawful imposition result in the other would char- appreciation tions. Rather it derives from system. power licensing acter the evil inherent in a assault Milton directed his of the licensor which John Printing’ Liberty of ‘Appeal Unlicensed for pernicious merely by particular not reason of the censure of comments the threat to censure comments but reason of merely sporadic It is on matters of concern. in- pervasive but threat the censor abuse danger to very herent in its existence that constitutes might have had (Citation.) who One freedom discussion. question into asking may call therefore license licensing prosecuted he for failure scheme of when whole is inherent it. A like threat procure (Citations.) not aim question here, which does penal statute, like area state control allowable specifically at within the evils other activities sweeps its ambit but, contrary, within on the
653 ordinary that in circumstances constitute an exercise free speech dom press. statute, or The existence of such a readily discriminatory which lends itself to harsh and en prosecuting officials, against particular forcement local groups displeasure, deemed to merit results in a con pervasive tinuous and restraint on all freedom of discussion might reasonably that regarded purview. as its within any or, permissible, not less if is not effective the restraint pernicious less than the of discussion restraint on freedom imposed by censorship. accused, An arrest the threat of after statute, and conviction under such a does not have to sustain demonstrating the burden of that the State could not consti tutionally specific have written a statute cover different and ing his charge activities as disclosed and the evidence against regulations introduced him. (Citation.) Where liberty of concerned, special free discussion are there are rea sons observing for statute, the rule that it is the and not the accusation prescribes or the it, evidence under permissible limits of transgres conduct and warns [Emphasis sion.” See, also, California, 310 Carlson v. added.] U.S. 112 106, 746, 84 ; S.Ct. L.Ed. v. Con Cantwell [60 1104] necticut, 296, 1213, 310 128 900, U.S. 306 84 L.Ed. S.Ct. [60 1352]; Hague C.I.O., A.L.R. S.Ct. U.S. [59 954, 83 Jersey, 1423]; Lanzetta v. New Griffin, 888]; S.Ct. 83 L.Ed. Lovell v. 303 U.S. L.Ed; 444, 452 Stromberg 949]; Califor nia, 283 In re 1117]; 75 L.Ed. Porterfield, supra, 115.) question provision
The statute in contains any “If provision of such chapter, application of this or the provision invalid, held person circumstance, shall be pro the remainder of of such chapter, application or the persons vision to those as to which or circumstances other than ” (Lab. invalid, thereby. Code, is held shall be not affected 1136.) separability That it. As clause cannot save stated § Lanzetta v. “If its face Jersey, supra, page New at 453: on challenged provision process due repugnant to the clause, specification of details of offense intended to be charged would not serve it. . . No one to validate .
required peril life, liberty property speculate meaning penal statutes. All entitled to be informed as to [Emphasis what the State commands or forbids.” directly impose While instant statute does added.] provide injunctive for relief in penalties, criminal it does injunc penalty disobeying an event of its violation and contempt It is a and a per tion is of court. coercive measure application does not whether son know advance its conduct will be constitutional or He should unconstitutional. required determination, make peril not be at his or as ‘‘ Porterfield, supra, In re at page poten 120: The stated severability ordinance, however, can have no tial effect As far as upon petitioner the instant matter. is concerned operative as whole the existence the statute was fact. *10 consequences ignored. existence as of its such cannot be petitioner have secured he In a license would have order complied have the terms of the ordinance as with writ had (1931), 553, 563-565 ten. In Smith v. Gaboon 283 U.S. 1264], private a carrier for hire was con operating charge upon highways of the of vehicles the victed having the obtained certificate of without convenience having necessity paid and required by and without the tax a Upon of the State of Florida. habeas corpus statute successfully defendant constitutionality provi contested the certain of applied private the statute as carriers. was con of sions conviction, a support however, savings that tended in infirmity denying the the removed the statute. clause holding efficacy the and defendant was contention that en right by titled to his constitutional virtue of the inva assert lidity upon face, Supreme its of the statute United States U.S.) : (page 563 of 288 of this Court stated ‘The effect sav merely that, provision if one ings clause is struck down as is separation But until others such been invalid stand.. judicial accomplished by decision, the statute remains its purport, application inclusive and those concerned in its have definitely eventually knowing what will be elim no means of ’ ” in statute, be left. Such inated and what will a lan Supreme guage Court of the United Thornhill States discriminatory Alabama, itself to and supra, “Lends harsh instant case prosecuting local officials enforcement [in restraining granting temporary is order the trial court and particular and preliminary permanent injunctions] groups displeasure,” “results deemed to merit and pervasive a continuous and restraint on freedom discus all reasonably controversy] might the labor that be re sion [of the statute garded It is if purview.” as within its true that can severable, part if above is, is that the void described necessity of deter- eliminated, the court faced with then is remains, part portion which mining whether enforce- by Blaney, is and valid remainder, was violated which part the void severable, then But the statute is not able. if nullity. It is whole becomes the remainder taints severability, it must considering the issue true that in also constitution- presumption of recognized general severability clause, ality, express statement of fortified a statute normally sustaining any portion of valid calls for proper where part. possible This is unconstitutional is, severable, mechanically language of the statute is by para- parts separated where the and invalid can be valid (See single words. graph, sentence, clause, phrase, or even Stern, Separa- Bell, 22], In re 19 Cal.2d P.2d 51 Harv. bility Supreme Court, Separability Clauses possibil- no 79.) L.Rev. On there is hand, the other where ity language so broad severance, of mechanical as where the power, legislative subjects as to cover within and without group by excising any word the defect be cured cannot words, more difficult problem quite different by this presented solution. It is latter which situation generally applies case. As we have cargo seen the hot act “any has the result of caus- agreement’’ combination or ing parties goods third handle the to refuse to with or deal provisions dispute. involved in the Its segregated way peace- in such a as to differentiate between *11 secondary ful publicizing dispute, of the and facts of a labor boycotts involving parties di- against third pressure economic rectly indirectly only way The dispute. or connected with the in by judicial segregation would could be be made wholly interpretation, holding as first that the act it stands by inserting unconstitutional, determining that, but then qualifications statutory exceptions language, and in a judicially might given reformed effect. statute some Such be step by Legislature a have in contemplated seems to been enacting severability in unusual form clauses the act of quoted (Lab. By heretofore type pro- of Code, 1136). this § vision, the Legislature sought delegate in effect to the courts the rewriting directing of statute, task them to set forth, in a judicial upholding succession of opinions or an- nulling judgments enforcing the provisions act, thus determining Legislature in advance the extent to which the may go in providing regulations in this It is an field. ines- capable that, result in the meantime, those individuals who
guess correctly courts, and those who will be released guess incorrectly one, employer, punished; will but that no until, employee, union or one know what the law is will thereon, higher statute, judgment after of a violation given question court opportunity pass on the of its validity applied circumstance.” particular “person to the or theory judicial sup cannot
Such construction ported legal practical grounds, on and two well-set either propositions legislation tled under review here condemn the in toto: in First, general terms where an entire statute fringes upon speech, it will be the constitutional of free where, stricken reason of entirety; second, down its invalidity applications fails to some criminal statute state an un guilt, definite criteria of constitutes whole legisla process constitutional denial of of law. due Similar case, tion grounds was held void on in the Bell 19 Cal. these 495, 497, 2d and in other as heretofore stated. The decisions Legislature manifestly sought, case, prohibit in the instant every boycott, including form of some kinds which are occa sionally “primary.” deliberately characterized as The chosen language, covering general terms, all no such activities attempt segregation classification, leaves this court with nullify no alternative but to the act. “ May provides The statute that it be in effect until shall (a) During and thereafter: the continuance of exist ence of emergency the National declared President United exist, proclamation States to issued under September 8, date of (b) During any period 1939. of war be tween the any foreign United le power, States America gally (Lab. declared Code, 1135.) further, to exist.” And § “This act preserving tranquillity is enacted for the among during the citizens of this commonwealth to insure present period emergency critical and inten of National sive production armament the unobstructed and distribution of the products of fields, our factories and for the continued protection preservation way of our life and democratic general (Stats. for the people of this welfare State.” 1941, ch. 623, 2.) compelled view of the result we are § unnecessary reach herein it is decide whether or not statute is still force. are Nor we concerned with whether it would during be a valid measure actual hostilities war. proceedings complaint herein and all acts of which *12 made occurred after the cessation of actual warfare or country in time engaged hostilities which this was at the although legally speaking a state statute, the enactment emergency presented may to exist. The be said still of war getting sinews of is not one of of hostilities the cessation since con and social but is one of economic battlefields war to the existing danger present only. possible The clear cern they The cease. during ceases to exist once hostilities emergency the limitation of and not actual existence validity the exercise of period gives prescribed law to a ceases, opera emergency the valid police power, and when the only by supported if it reason tion of the ends can be statute emergency. (Hourigan Bergan Tp., North 193, 785].) urgency It that N.J.L. 143 A. is true problems created the economic and social which are urgency clearly aftermath of war still remain. is in Such support speech sufficient to the broad restraint on freedom of press aptly and the embraced in instant It statute. was dissenting in Holmes, opinion said Mr. Justice in States, Abrams United 1173], amplifying majority the rule stated in the
opinion by him in States, written Schenck v. United 249 U.S. (dealing 63 L.Ed. with the statutes 470] concerning the obstruction of the war effort the first world war): “I do not doubt for a moment that the same rea soning justify that punishing would persuasion murder, constitutionally may the United States punish speech pro that produce duces or is intended to danger a clear and imminent bring it will about forthwith certain substantive evils that the constitutionally United States prevent. seek to power undoubtedly greater is in time of war than time peace opens dangers because war that do exist at other times. against dangers
“But as peculiar war, others, principle speech always to free the same. only present danger of immediate or an evil intent bring it about that Congress setting warrants limit expression to the opinion private rights where are not con- Congress cerned. certainly cannot change forbid all effort to country. mind of the Only emergency . . . that makes immediately dangerous to leave the coun- correction of evil sels time making any exception warrants sweeping to the ‘Congress command. . shall make abridging no law . . ” speech.’ freedom of urged It that from the appears record it picketing was ingress done which barred egress to and from Ram- *13 place on compulsion
ser’s of business and that was exerted duty as such carriers common carriers to violate their lawful goods un- accept transportation, constitute acts respectively, object picketing lawful and unlawful contempt clearly restraining judgment are but the order and of cargo act” as seen predicated upon a violation of “hot not decide do from the initial recitation therein and we guilty of Blaney properly whether could have been found carriers. contempt for acts in connection with common issue dispose The above considerations of the essential unnecessary and undesir proceeding us, before and it is both permissible limits able to venture into a discussion subject is boycotts. legislative regulation secondary This conflicting engendered difficult, highly controversial, and has guide in by courts, sure decisions the state without Only the most Supreme Court. decisions United States We by court. general principles have been laid down secondary boycott know that when a union aims its dispute, industrial businesses connected with the beyond goes protection the limits constitutional subject regulation Union by (Carpenters & Joiners the state state can that the Cafe, supra), v. Ritter’s we know also un against the steps not confine the concerted action of labor Angelos, (Cafeteria Employees Union fair alone Bakery Wohl, supra). Somewhere supra; Local v. Drivers drawn, may but it should extremes, line be between these directly presented, be drawn in a case wherein issue necessary that an authoritative decision, for the in order and, court binding pronouncement may made be perhaps, Supreme Court. United States case, manifestly in the instant Legislature sought, every including kinds which prohibit boycott, some form The deliber- occasionally “primary.” characterized as ately general activities in language, covering chosen all such classification, terms, segregation or leaves attempt with no Only by nullify the act. this court with no but to alternative carefully separately treats various drawn statute which “secondary boy- loosely termed forms of concerted action object cotts,” Legislature accomplish hope can ultimately regulating held to be forms which those power. within its constitutional discharged. petitioner is therefore ordered Sehauer, J., Gibson, J., Traynor, J., C. concurred. judgment. in the SPENCE, J. concur I grave parties have discussed proceeding present In the of which this the determination questions in constitutional Supreme the United States decisions of bound court is questions decisions those respect to some of Court. With guide, certain offer no Supreme Court United States appears to be decisive single question which upon the but clearly indicate that court the decisions of controversy, of this (Lab. 1131, 1136) and Code, us that the statute before §§ (which order restraining thereunder restraining issued order in its 1134 of the Labor Code wording of section follows the trenching declared invalid must be provisions) essential rights guaranteed the Constitution upon fundamental *14 the States. United majority in the and briefs, in as well as
Much said the to dissenting herein, regarding the of state opinions the deci- majority opinion The stresses picketing. prohibit Supreme Court which tend to iden- the United States sions of rights free- tify picket with the constitutional of to the assembly. dissenting speech, press, of the and of The dom of that recent decisions of court which indi- opinion stresses the may rights identical, picketing are not and that cate that such enjoined may under declared unlawful and be various cir- question here, however, general is not the cumstances. The one commonly in that picketing, its relation to which is of whether cargo" “secondary boycott," may termed “hot be consti- tutionally question proscribed. precise The for determination us, defining cargo” before “hot whether statute and the “secondary boycott" particular (§1134, in a manner subds. (a) (b)) declaring enjoin- and them to and and be unlawful (§§ infringes upon guarantees. 1131,1133), able constitutional question Having determined that the answer to the last infringe upon does constitutional guarantees, that said statute may in this picketing be assumed discussion such can by constitutionally proscribed appropriate an drawn statute purpose. accomplishment for the of that emphasized particular It that this should be statute is not merely antipicketing prevention statute. While picketing may primary been one of the purposes well have legislation (despite of the framers of the fact that the appear “picketing" therein), goes word does the statute much further and covers other activities. multitude language will be sufficient to mention but a few. broad (a), section subdivision makes enjoin- unlawful and agreement able part the mere on the employees engaged of the in primary dispute publish labor the facts of that dis pute if agreement publication such and in result a refusal employees of another perform any services for such other employer; language broad of section (b), enjoinable subdivision makes any unlawful and agreement part employees on the engaged such pri mary dispute publicize facts of such even among fellow-employees purpose inducing employees such patronage to withhold employers from other and for inducing the ultimate employers such other doing refrain from employer engaged business with primary dispute. appears Thus it language said (a) section (b), purports subdivisions to make enjoinable unlawful and acts, certain not involving coer picketing, cive methods as clearly which protected acts are guarantees of speech freedom of press of the as found (U. our federal Const., Constitution S. Amendments 14) and as construed United Supreme States Court numerous majority opinion. cases cited in the
That which has been regarding infringement said upon guarantees constitutional provisions made of section (a) (b) subdivisions Code, Labor like wise greater be said with respect force with provisions to the of section 1132. The last-mentioned section is not confined “ any agreement” combination or but it further declares “any unlawful directly act . . . indirectly ... in duces ... a violation provisions chap of this *15 (Emphasis ter.” added.) Thus under that single section a might doing individual enjoinable unlawful and if act merely he should publicize voice otherwise the facts of a under certain circumstances. It cannot be seri ously contended that section 1132 can stand the constitutional tests laid down Supreme the United States Court. While it is provisions true that the of that section were not made the basis of the restraining order in present case, perhaps it is significant to dissenting opinion that the note makes no at tempt provisions. to defend They those are mentioned here only to demonstrate range further the wide of activities which purports statute unlawful. declare
This court reviewed certain decisions of the United States Supreme Court in Marinship James v. 25 Corp., Cal.2d 721
661 recognizing both 900], and, in 329, P.2d 160 A.L.R. [155 “Thus page 730: limitations, said legislative power and its or other con upon picketing may impose limitations a state sought’ permissible under state ‘end is not certed action if the subject any limitations are though public policy, law Court, and will be Supreme by the States to review United right to unreasonably labor’s they interfere with if annulled dispute.” view of Under publicize the facts of a labor it Supreme Court, controlling of the United States decisions do provisions of the statute is clear that the above-mentioned publicize “unreasonably labor’s interfere with they be declared un dispute,” and that must facts of a labor that a immaterial consti for that reason. constitutional proscribing spe might been drawn tutional statute have Blaney found have done violation of cific acts was which Here re restraining order. both the the broad terms of the upon straining and the section of the statute which was order constitutionally (§ cannot 1134) based cover acts which can, agree I proscribed as those which as well majority opinion provisions that the conclusion reached mechanically permit of said section are not severable so severability (Lab. 1136) upon Code, reliance clause § judgment contempt save the or to statute sustain petitioner is under attack. It therefore follows that is entitled discharge. to his
Edmonds, J., concurred.
SHENK, J.I dissent. repeatedly said, prevailing in accord with
This court has judicial labor-management opinion elsewhere, that conflicts controlled, not by but relations can best be courts Legislature. (Parkinson Building Council, Co. v. Trades 154 581, 1027,16 1165, 21 599, Cal. P. Ann.Cas. L.R.A.N.S. [98 550]; Lyons, 389, C. Met. Market Co. v. 16 Cal.2d S. Smith 414]; Magill Building P.2d Bros. v. Service etc. Union, ; inship P.2d James v. Mar Cal.2d 542] Corp., 329,160 ; P.2d A.L.R. Cal.2d 730 [155 900] Corp. Teamsters, Park etc. & T. I. v. International Cal. 2d 599, 1426].) P.2d 162 A.L.R. Since those Legislature acted, decisions rendered the not once were declaring cargo” “secondary boy but the “hot twice *16 practices cott” provided unlawful labor and has redress civil action. (Stats.
The passed 1941, p. 2079). first act was in 1941 The against referendum was invoked it and the effective date of postponed approval by the act was until its the electors general November, state at During election 1942. campaign for and terms of the enactment were extensively discussed, meaning and its and effect were thor- oughly understood. That act provision limiting contained a its May 1, 1943, effective duration during until and thereafter period of any war between the foreign United States and power. Legislature
The last (Stats. session of the 1947, p. 844, 278) ch. emergency eliminated provision but without changing the law as enacted in 1941. This was done after hearings extensive during legislative discussion and ses Now, sion. Legislature after the has twice so acted and the electors of the approved law, have pro state this court ceeds to it down for reasons which I deem insufficient strike compelled and not by any provision by any constitutional decision of Supreme Court of the United States.
The petitioner, Blaney, sought W. T. his release from re straint under a commitment contempt injunctive for order issued damages an action for injunctive relief brought in Superior Angeles Court in County Los pursuant to sections 1131-1136 of commonly the Labor Code called the Cargo “Hot Secondary Boycott (Stats. Act” p. 2079). The action had brought by been Ramser, one doing Upholstery business as the Supply Company, against specified drivers’ and teamsters’ unions affiliated with the American Labor, Federation of freight lines, various and other defen including dants petitioner individually and as business representative of one of the I unions. will parties refer to the in that action as “plaintiff” and “defendants.” plaintiff’s
The plant being was picketed because of a employees. strike order, April dated 18, 1946, restrained the unions and their affiliates from making any agreement combination or attempt would cause or employees any cause supplier or customer or carrier of plaintiff performing cease services for such em ployer causing the latter to refrain from furnishing supplies purchasing supplies to or plain from the tiff, or carrying or shipping freight or merchandise for *17 operation peaceful excepted from its order plaintiff. The prohibited combina- pursuant done to the picketing when not thereby sought enjoin com- agreement. The court tion or cargo” threatened “hot agreements aid of binations or business, boycott” plaintiff’s “secondary of the operations or carriers, suppliers and cus- employees his which prevent by picketing otherwise to induced or might be tomers carrying their with out contracts employers from plain- picketing of the affecting peaceful plaintiff, without for hearing on a citation employees. his After plant tiff’s petitioner, combina- found that contempt, the court order, of the others, acts violation had committed tion imprisonment. imposed fine and both committed and found to have been The acts restrained “secondary cargo” and of “hot within the definition were seq., of the boycott” et declared unlawful sections presented for deter- proceeding Labor This therefore Code. constitutionality questions concerning mination certain Boycott Secondary Act. Cargo Hot cargo” and By 1131 of the Labor Code the “hot section “secondary boycott” to be unlawful. Section are declared any agree- act, combination or 1132 also declares unlawful compels directly indirectly causes, induces or or ment injury any provision act, loss, or inflicts a violation of any anyone of his refusal to violate damage or because recovery provides for provision of the act. Section injunctive damages and relief. cargo” “any (a) “hot as combina
Section 1134 defines by employees to resulting in refusal agreement tion or any employer perform for their goods handle or to services employer and. his some other because of a between any or organization labor or combination employees or a by employers to handle resulting in a refusal agreement employer because any for another goods perform services or his em employer and agreement between such other of an secondary boycott (b) organization”; and ployees or a labor performing, or agreement to cease “any combination or any services any performing employee to cease to cause injury to such em any or any employer, to cause loss or inducing or purpose employees, for the ployer, or to his with, doing business from to refrain compelling employer aof because any employer other handling products or or labor employees or a his dispute between the latter and ganization. any agreement or combination per or to cease forming, any employer any or to performing cause to cease services for employer, any another or in to cause loss or jury employer, to such employees, other or to his for the inducing compelling employer such other doing refrain from with, handling products business any employer, agreement other of an because between the . ” employees latter organization and his or a re maining organization, subdivisions section define labor employee. Section 1135 until states that the act shall be effect “ May 1, 1943, (a) During and thereafter the continuance of emergency the existence of National declared exist, by proclamation President of the United States to issued September 8, (b) During under date of 1939. *18 period of war between the United States of America and any power, foreign legally declared exist.” to severability clause, providing 1136 is if
Section any provision, application provision par- or the of such persons invalid, ticular or circumstances should be held the act, application persons of or circum- remainder or its thereby. stances otherwise shall not be affected findings court, upon There is no attack nor upon sufficiency support judgment in the con- tempt proceeding if the statute be deemed a valid exercise legislative power. (combinations agree- of Since acts and ments) restrained and found to have been committed come cargo” “secondary boy- within “hot the definitions of and 1134, cott” contained in court is section not confronted necessity determining with the of the effect of section 1132. validity The of that section is not involved facts under the in this case. question agreements
The then is whether combinations and boycott” cargo” “secondary “hot and furtherance of may operations, 1134, section un- defined be declared equitable Legislature, legal lawful and redress injury petitioner prevent afforded for and to therefrom. The legislative power not exist because its contends that that does speech exercise interferes with claimed freedom of connec- boycott,” “secondary including peaceably con- tion with a words, petitioner invokes the picketing. ducted In other right guarantee speech free as an inherent constitutional of secondary employer, pursue, disputes in union with an 665 employer’s business, measures including coercive picketing carriers, suppliers peace- if and customers ably But, early conducted. as stated case Pierce v. (1909), 70, page Stablemen’s 156 78 Union Cal. P. [103 324], sanctity puts no to a attaches trade union which it upon rights enjoyed by above law or confers not other individual association. alleged provoked by judicial The constitutional issue is picketing speech pro- a form utterances that of free Layers’ guaranties. (Senn Tile tected under constitutional Union, 5, 857, Local 301 468 Protective No. S.Ct. U.S. [57 Alabama, 81 L.Ed. Thornhill v. 1229]; U.S. S.Ct. [60 California, 310 1093]; 84 L.Ed. Carlson v. Swing, 84 L.Ed. American Fed. ; Labor 1104] 855]; Bell, In re Cal. 22].) follow, 2d 488 not P.2d It does the courts have declared, peaceful picketing never become action- enjoinable. able or present (with appropriate statute declares tortious
legal equitable redress) conduct, which in the absence statute, generally tortious, courts have held to but which minority jurisdictions in a have, the courts in the absence permissive statute, regarded as nonactionable and non- enjoinable. (See 1, Teller, Disputes vol. Labor and Collec- Bargaining, also, tive 150 and cited; see, article, cases §§ Teller, Picketing Speech, Free 56 Harv. L. Rev. re- printed Disputes in Teller, Labor Bargaining, and Collective April, 1947, p. Supp., 70, tracing emergence Cumulative history picketing identification of with the speech.) court, free Heretofore this the absence of statute, adopted minority in dealing view with “sec- *19 boycott” ondary as a of in means economic coercion labor (Parkinson disputes. Building Council, Co. v. Trades supra, 581; Union, supra, 154 Pierce v. Cal. Stablemen’s 156 Cal. But, 70.) stated, court repeatedly hereinbefore this has uniformly legis- such matter declared that a was one for cognizance, Legislature lative and that since had the not legislative guidance left in acted the courts were without the determination thereof. may
Picketing purpose enjoined, an for unlawful be (James Marinship supra, Corp., 721; v. Bautista Cal.2d v. Jones, 343]; Corp. P.2d Park & I. Cal.2d T. v. Teamsters, supra, 599.) 27 Cal.2d International etc.
Although generally, statute, in the absence the court may dispute, not define the boundaries of an industrial unquestionably Legislature power has in the interests prescribe upon of the welfare to reasonable limits by weapons the use economic either side in industrial con- troversy. Porterfield, In In re at 101 P. Cal.2d recognized 675], definitely 2d A.L.R. it that was constitutionally protected right speech not an of free right; right carry absolute that not into the does professions immunity from conduct businesses and total speech is regulation performance in the of acts as which accomplishment; a and that a mere incident or means of speak indulged be profit for the in derogation police power the state. “secondary boycott” approving or other
This court
in
repeatedly
measures as lawful union activities
coercive
change
legislative power
policy
recognized the
quotations
following
from our
This
state.
is evidenced
decisions:
“
questions
regard to other
of economic
as with
[A]nd
remedy
needed,
remedy, if
must be
political aspect, the
Building Trades
(Parkinson
legislature.”
found
Co.
610, per
page
And
Council, supra,
599.)
at
Cal.
combinations,
be, in
concurring,
if
Sloss,
“But
there
J.
remedy
sought,
redressed,
is to be
which
evils
should
by legislation.
If
sought,
it has been
as to some extent
laws,
laws
be made
require
those
should
conditions
new
law-making power, not
the courts.”
organization
may very well
that combination and
“It
per
places
the hands of a few
on
side or the other
one
ought
welfare,
which,
general
an immense
sons
But these are considerations
and controlled.
to be limited
Smith,
(C.
power,
law-making
not for courts.”
for the
S.
389, 400.) And
Lyons, supra, 16
Cal.2d
Market
Met.
Co.
they
grown
have
“The fear
page
unions]
[labor
disrupt
vital civil liberties
endanger
strong
so
as to
argument exclu
system is an
functioning
our economic
legislature.”
sively for the consideration
such as
cases
equity’s intervention
“The basis
upon
picketing]
rests
statements
[enjoining untruthful
forms of collective
one
picketing the fact
upon
em-
pressure
economic
exert
activity
seeks to
seq.) . . . Such
et
Restatement, Torts,
(See
ployer.
§
*20
activity
only
permissible
collective labor
is
when conducted
according
requirements imposed
law,
to
and if
vio-
requirements, picketing
subject
lation
such
ordi-
under
nary
equity.
a
circumstances to
restraint of
court of
. . .
imposed
determining
picketing
The standards
whether
enjoinable,
permissible,
lawful and
or unlawful and
matters of
state law which have varied from time to time
jurisdiction
Building
from
Bros.
jurisdiction.”
(Magill
to
supra,
506, 510.)
Service
Union,
etc.
20 Cal.2d
Supreme
“Although
United
recent decisions
States
Court hold that
deprive
a state cannot
labor unions
right
speech
peaceful picketing
of free
. . . these
through
deny
power
protect
decisions do not
a state
to
right.
upheld
abuses of the
recent
two
cases the court
power
peaceful picketing
place
state’s
to limit
as to
both
industry
(Allen-
relationship
picketed
economic
Bradley
Board,
Local No. 1111 v.
E. B.
Wisconsin
315 U.S.
1154]; Carpenters
L.Ed.
&
S.Ct.
Joiners
[62
Union v.
Cafe,
Ritter’s
Picketing
speech.
effectively
involves more than
was
This
in Carpenters
demonstrated
& Joiners Union v.
Cafe,
Ritter’s
striction disputants other tra- open leaves arises *21 deny To to the states the ditional modes of communication. the power line to into the Constitution to draw this is write picketing—anywhere every peaceful notion that instance necessarily phase a of the circumstances—is and under a controversy provoked picketing. Such view which the dis- states to allow the compel Due Process Clause would episode conscript neutrals putants particular in to a industrial industry in having no relation to either the it arose. which in the circum forbidding conscription neutrals,
“In
us,
represents
prevailing,
Texas
before
stances
ease
Citing
unanimous, policy of the
probably
states.
[
the Constitution
Teller and
We hold
other writers.]
drawn
to
the line
has been
does not forbid Texas
draw
which
consti
To
be to transmute vital
here.
hold otherwise would
mindful
dogma.
tutional
doctrinaire
We must be
liberties into
their
rights
employees to conduct
employers
that ‘the
in the
a share
compete
economic
and to
with others for
affairs
industry
subject
qualifica
to modification
products
they exist. This is
society
tion in
interests of the
limits
power
to
but
instance of the
of the State
set the
Thornhill
permissible
open
industrial combatants.’
contest
736, 84 L.Ed.
Alabama,
88,103,104
310 U.S.
S.Ct.
1093].
[60
policy under
the wisdom of
“It
is not for us to assess
duty
find
is at an end when we
lying the law of Texas. Our
her the
deny
that the Fourteenth Amendment does
. ”
policy into
to enact that
law
comment
cases which
I note without extended
other
Bakery &
recognized, such as
power of the state has also been
816,
Pastry Drivers,
Wohl,
769, 775
S.Ct.
etc. v.
315 U.S.
[62
all
required
tolerate in
: “A state is not
case us on places confronts our say this Court to where the individual’s freedom ends and power begins. border, State’s Choice on that as al- now ways delicate, perhaps presumption more so the usual where legislation supporting given preferred place is balanced *22 in our great, indispensable scheme to the democratic free- by doms secured . . priority the First Amendment. . That gives sanctity these liberties a and a permitting sanction not dubious intrusions. And it is right, the character of the not limitation, which governs determines what standard choice. . . For attempt . these reasons to restrict those justified by liberties must be clear public interest, threatened doubtfully by but remotely, present danger.” clear and That majority case involved what the considered to be right public bare address, purportedly by to make a restricted prohibiting statute membership solicitation of union organizer labor union obtaining without first organizer’s an card. “present danger” may The test appropriate be deemed to such a situation no speech more than because free or free assembly present case, involving something was involved. The more than mere speech, is ruled therefore not that test but governed by upon in the considerations dwelt the Ritter’s Cafe and other For, similar cases. likewise in the as said Collins, supra, Thomas v. case, pages 537-538, at “When persuasion things other bring are added which about coercion, give it right that limit character, the passed”; and, been Douglas pages concurring, Justice at 543-544, may required said: “No one to obtain a license in order speak. But he power once uses the economic he jobs has over action, other men and to influence their doing he is exercising more than freedom speech pro-
tected Amendment. is true whether he the First This long employee. or an But as as he does no more speak right, than no he has same unfettered matter what espouses.” side an issue he present prac- statute does not cut off other ease whereby ticable, interested—including effective means those directly employees affected—may enlighten public on dispute. causes a labor It cannot nature and be over- against agree- emphasized speaks that the act combinations and defined, ments as therein purport and does not to include organized primary activities of direct attack and boycott (cf. Bell, supra, 488), In the em- re Cal.2d ployer Many progress. with whom a is in anti-trust legislatures the constitutional and similar laws attest combination, pursuant con- public from acts protect be deemed law- would agreement, which otherwise spiracy or judicial authority holds great “The preponderance ful. illegal if done acts become individual blameless Disputes and Collective Bar- (Teller, Labor in combination.” cited.) Thus the means 37-38, and cases 1, pp. vol. gaining, public and educated securing informed of an essential pre- concern are a matter of respect to opinion with than safeguarded by modes of communication other served and (Cf. agreements and combinations. unlawful the declared 103-104) pp. ; supra, Alabama, U.S. Thornhill v. (cf. Carl- picketing as such peaceful prohibit the act nor does Bell, supra, 106; re supra, 310 California, son 488). Cal.2d carry right to a business is a deny on No one will (Duplex Print under fundamental law. protected to be 443, 465; supra, 254 Truax v. Deering, ing Press Co. 254].) 66 L.Ed. Corrigan, 257 U.S. 327 [42 *23 recognition law as equally under the It is a entitled what and where and for right of a to decide when the worker labor, organize with other workers for wages will and to he correlative rights are protection of mutual interests. Those the and carried on unbridled in the that neither sense upon participants effect the giving heed to their without some community community. The has the upon and the welfare of general prin in the matter. and vital interest a direct dissenting opinion Brandeis in ciples Justice were stated seq.) 355 et in supra (257 pp. Corrigan, in Traux v. “Practically every in change the law language: following the employee abridge, must employer and governing the relation of liberty respect, parties— in property some or one of the liberty if property and be measured standard of the changes If prevailing. law theretofore are made acts Legislature, we call an exercise of the the modification police And, although change may power. inter- involve existing liberty ference with property individuals, and will not be declared a of the due process statute violation arbitrary clause, unless court finds that the interference is or that, means, unreasonable or a the measure considered as has no real a permissible substantial relation of cause to changes governing end. Nor will such law contests employee between and be violative of the held to equal protection liberty merely property clause because (for instance, individuals in other relations to each other as competitors in trade purchaser) or as vendor and would not, subject abridg- under similar circumstances, be to like ment. Few application. laws are of universal It is of the nature our general, law it has dealt with man but him relationships. with . . . That the relation em- ployer employee legis- affords a constitutional basis for applicable only lation persons standing in that relation repeatedly been held Nearly . . legislation court. . all weighing a public involves private desires, needs as weighing likewise gov- of relative social values. Since science, ernment is not an prevailing exact public opinion con- cerning remedy among important evils facts deserving consideration, particularly public when the convic- tion deep-seated is both widespread and has been reached after . . opinion deliberation. . The divergence in this dif- governmental ficult field of action should admonish us not to arbitrary declare rule merely and unreasonable because we fraught convinced that it is danger public weal, to the experiment thus close door to within the law.” It should not be concluded that the lacks state select for its citizens that conflicting regarding one of the views “secondary boycott” cargo” and “hot Legislature considers will best meet promote conditions and Wagon welfare. As said in Milk Drivers Union v. Meadow Dairies, moor 312 132 A.L.R. 1200], “That other states have chosen a different
path in such a situation indicates differences of social view a domain in which shape states are free policy. local (At . p. 299.) . . Just because these industrial raise conflicts *24 difficulties, important it for us not to
anxious is most intrude by policy-making reading into realm of our notions the own into Constitution.” the power its Legislature,
The direction taken the within case, inas is not a matter with which this court should public interfere. The courts are not absolute architects of Legislature, policy. primarily That function resides the may except in whose enactments the courts not override cases guaranties. of clear violation constitutional Legislature The that the foregoing discussion demonstrates probably constitutionally adopt prevailing, “the (Carpenters & Union unanimous, policy of the Joiners states” 722, 728) determines Cafe, supra, Ritter’s when desirability point to the of such that economic conditions policy. relating economic social prevailing Facts to the desirability change policy the and the state conditions state, presented to and safeguard welfare of were the appears fully Legislature. That this is so considered reads: “This language from of the act which of section among tranquillity preserving act is enacted for the during this and to insure citizens of this commonwealth intensive emergency and present period critical of National production armament and distribution the unobstructed protec products fields, for the continued of our factories way life and for preservation tion of our democratic houses Both general people of the of this State.” welfare necessity Legislature were so convinced of governor’s change they of 1941 passed the act over the will of change represented in policy veto. That the that the act fact people is demonstrated of the state 1942, gen November, adopted referendum at the was vote subject. The public on the election, eral after extensive debate legislative and clearly expressive act of both the is therefore knowledge common popular determination. It is within furnish vital services stopping that the of businesses tranquility, to the and essential commodities is adverse indeed to hold be anomalous health and welfare. would regulate such matters because Legislature had no not freeze does involved. The Constitution was beyond weapons economic industrial warfare the use of legislative control. 1135) (§ its terms in effect accordance with act was occurring the commitment herein and
at the time of the events expiration of the declared and until petitioner, (which may July 25, 1947, emergency have been deemed to officially when the President of the United States declared *25 measure), gave the termination of the wars which rise the limiting prior Legislature repealed 1135 section emergency the duration the act made the of to the war and permanent 278, (Stats. 1947, p.---, rest of the act ch. Sen. 342). By section 2 it repealing Bill of act was declared: permanently preserv “This act is enacted for of ing tranquillity among the citizens of this State and to insure production the unobstructed products and distribution of the fields, of our factories and permanent for the continued and protection preservation and way of of our democratic life and public peace, health, safety general welfare of the people of this State.”
According
majority
to the
view, the California enactment
restraining
and the
order
pursuant
issued
thereto are “too
sweeping, vague
uncertain,”
with the main
on
reliance
Bell,
supra,
re
agement (ch. 120, 101), Act of 1947 Law Relations Public including Act, Labor amendment of National Relations “secondary boycott” Congress operations has declared practice pro unfair concerted action be an legislation language visions for civil remedies. That cast in the same substance and effect as section here under consideration. stated,
As the statute here involved is not a criminal stat cargo” “secondary boycott” ute. It defines “hot com agreements language opera binations and which fits those they commonly practiced. they tions as As so defined wrongs enjoinable. are declared to be actionable civil present proceeding apparently expe the trial court difficulty rienced no in arriving findings its petitioner actually “employees with others had caused suppliers, plaintiff customers and carriers of the to cease performing prevented services” for their employers; had employers any doing “from plaintiff business with purchasing any supplies plaintiff carrying, ship from ping or receiving freight or merchandise or from plaintiff place and his findings business.” The court’s and order show a clear understanding legislative here, definitions. Likewise as in the Petrillo case, no one suggested how draftsmanship might of those definitions improved. No contention is petitioner’s made that acts, court, clearly found were embraced within language of the definitions. There is therefore no such *27 difficulty language prevent with the as would the administra legislative tion the act in accord with the popular and prevent intent. That persons intent activities of concert and from bringing combinations coercion to bear upon employees stop work it insofar as would interfere rights neutrals, is, directly those who are not particular dispute. By involved in the the act the Legislature determined, regardless prior declared emergency, notwithstanding prior judicial declarations, and carrying “secondary” operations by on of “com con
binations” of individuals as defined section trary to the interest and my opinion, unlawful. was within the Legislature constitutional so language to determine. The of sections 1131 pertinent case, sections to the facts of this is certain and is readily clearly understood. Those sections fully disclose legislative prohibit intent the activities enjoined, which were there therefore no reason at this any question severability time to arising resolve under sec tion 1136. discharged petitioner should writ remanded. 4761. In No. Bank. Oct.
[Crim. 1947.] THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EGGERS, ARTHUR R.
Appellant.