state statute of which complaint is made,is not reviewable in the Federal Supreme Court on writ of error. the validity or invalidity, under the Federal IN N ERROR to the Supreme Court of Constitution, of certain provisions of a the State of Kansas to review a judg ment which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Crawford County, in that state, adjudging persons guilty of contempt in refusing to attend and give testimony before the Court of Industrial Relations. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Also For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 1465 1528, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1903.] Contempt of injunction of order. invalidity 2. An injunction duly issuing out of a court of general jurisdiction with equity powers, upon pleadings properly invoking its action, and served upon persons made parties therein and within the jurisdiction, must be obeyed by them, however erroneous the action of the court may be, even if the error be in the assumption of the validity of a seeming but void law going to the merits of the case. IN N ERROR to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas to review a judgment which affirmed a judgment of the District Court of Crawford County, in that state, adjudging certain persons guilty of contempt for violating an injunction forbidding the calling or caus [For other cases, see Contempt, I. b, 2, in Dling of a strike. Dismissed for want of jurisdiction. gest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Error to state court — Federal question decision on non-Federal ground. 3. The question of the validity, under the Federal Constitution, of the Kansas Industrial Relations Court Act, is not so involved as to justify review in the Federal Supreme Court of a decision of the highest court of the state, upholding a conviction for violation of an injunction order forbid ding the calling or causing of a strike, where, although deciding the constitutional questions, the court also held that, even if the injunction was erroneous, jurisdiction was not thereby forfeited, that the error was subject to correction only by the ordinary method of appeal, and that disobedience to the order constituted contempt, especially since the injunction suit was not the enforcement of the Industrial Relations Court Act, but was a proceeding wholly independent of that act, and the court, in entertaining it, did not depend on the constitutionality of that act for its jurisdiction or the justification of its order. For other cases, see Appeal and Error, 14651528, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [Nos. 154 and 491.] See same case below in No. 154, 107 Kan. 423, 191 Pac. 585; No. 491, 109 Kan. 376, A.L.R., 198 Pac. 686. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. Redmond S. Brennan argued the cause, and, with Messrs. John F. McCarron and Frank Bonar Hegerty, filed a brief for plaintiffs in error: The district court of Crawford county was without jurisdiction to issue the injunction in this cause, and could not therefore punish a disregard of it as a contempt. An injunction which is void because issued by a court without jurisdiction may be treated as having no existence, and as a denial of due process under the 14th Amendment. State ex rel. New Orleans Gaslight Co. V. Voorhies, 37 La. Ann. 605; Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713, 28 L. ed. 1117, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 724; Brown v. Moore, 61 Cal. 432; State ex rel. Liversey v. Civil Dist. Judge, 34 La. Ann. 741. A court or judge, in granting an in-. junction, is limited in jurisdiction by the Argued February 27 and 28, 1922. Decided terms of the Constitution or statute con March 13, 1922. Note. On the general subject of writs of error from the United States Supreme Court to state courts-see notes to Martin v. Hunter, 4 L. ed. U. S. 97; Hamblin v. Western Land Co. 37 L. ed. U. S. 267; Re Buchanan, 39 L. ed. U. S. 884; and Kipley v. Illinois, 42 L. ed. U. S. 998. On what adjudications of state courts can be brought up for review in the Supreme Court of the United States by writ of error to those courts-see note to Apex Transp. Co. v. Garbade, 62 L.R.A. 513. On how and when questions must be raised and decided in a state court in order to make a case for a writ of error ferring the power. from the Supreme Court of the United States-see note to Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 63 L.R.A. 33. On what the record must show respecting the presentation and decision of a Federal question in order to confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court of the United States of a writ of error to a state court-see note to Hooker v. Los Angeles, 63 L.R.A. 471. As to the effect of appeal on trial court's jurisdiction to punish contempt in injunction cases-see notes to Merrimac River Sav. Bank v. Clay Center, 55 L. ed. U. S. 320, and Barnes v. Chicago Typographical Union, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1150. 338. Jones v. Little Rock, 25 Ark. 284;, U. S. 331, 64 L. ed. 596, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. Smith v. Ellis, 29 Me. 422; Cooper v. Mineral Point, 34 Wis. 181. The provisions of the Court of Industrial Relations Act, affecting the business of coal mining with a public interest, violates liberty of contract and due process of law. State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307, 21 L.R.A. 789, 22 S. W. 350; Millett v. People, 117 Ill. 294, 57 Am. Rep. 869, 7 N. E. 631; State v. Goodwill, 33 W. Va. 179, 6 L.R.A. 621, 25 Am. St. Rep. 863, 10 S. E. 285; Godcharles v. Wigeman, 113 Pa. 437, 6 Atl. 354; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. 876. There can be no contempt in this case because the act, chapter 29, Kansas Special Session Laws of 1920, seeking to create the Kansas court of industrial relations, is void on its face as an arbitrary, oppressive, unreasonable, and unjust discrimination, in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 563, 46 L. ed. 679, 691, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; United States v. Yount, 267 Fed. 861; McFarland v. American Sugar Ref. Co. 241 U. S. 79, 60 L. ed. 899, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Brown v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. 115 Ga. 429, 57 L.R.A. 547, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126, 41 S. E. 553; State v. Cudahy Packing Co. 33 Mont. 179, 114 Am. St. Rep. 804, 82 Pac. 833, 8 Ann. Cas. 717; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. Тех. Civ. App., 67 S. W. 1057; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 61 L. ed. 1336, L.R.A.1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A. 1915C, 960, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. ed. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 383; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 62 L. ed. 260, L.R.A.1918C, 497, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 461; Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 Fed. 62. The act seeking to create the court of industrial relations is void, as against the 14th Amendment, because it is a penal statute that is too vague, indefi nite, and uncertain, and an unlawful restraint on interstate commerce. Oklahoma Operating Co. v. Love, 252 The Industrial Court Act violates § 4 of art. 4 of the United States Constitution, in that it commingles the functions of the three great departments of the government, and is therefore a denial of a republican form of government, and of due process. Minneapolis Eastern R. Co. v. Minnesota, 134 U. S. 467, 33 L. ed. 985, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 224, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 473; Re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449, 35 L. ed. 219, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331, 15 L. ed. 401; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 19 L. ed. 227; Re Sims, 54 Kan. 1, 25 L.R.A. 110, 45 Am. St. Rep. 261, 37 Pac. 135; State ex rel. Godard v. Johnson, 61 Kan. 803, 49 L.R.A. 662, 60 Pac. 1068; State v. Pope, 110 Mo. App. 529, 85 S. W. 633; White County v. Gwin, 136 Ind. 563, 22 L.R.A. 402, 36 N. E. 237; Vigo County v. Stout, 136 Ind. 53, 22 L.R.A. 398, 35 N. E. 683. The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations Law is a void attempt to legislate on matters of exclusive Federal jurisdiction. It is elementary that, where the Federal government has exercised control in cases within its jurisdiction, the state, although at liberty to legislate prior to the assumption of control by the Federal government, is thereafter precluded. The act in question contravenes the Clayton Act of October 15, 1914, and the Lever Act of August 10, 1917. The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations Act is void as an abridgment of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States, as guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U. S. 184, ante, 189, A.L.R. 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 72; Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 52 L. ed. 436, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 61 L. ed. 1336, L.R.A.1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 251, 62 L. ed. 260, 276, L.R.A.1918C, 497, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 461; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 383; Butchers' Union S. H. & L. S. L. Co. v. Crescent City L. S. L. & S. H. Co. 111 U. S. 746, 28 L. ed. 585, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652; Powell v., Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. ed. 253, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992, 1257; Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 Fed. 62; Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 52 L.R.A. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 176, 58 N. E. 1007; People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y. 257, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 282, 113 Am. St. Rep. 902, 77 N. E. 1073, 7 Ann. Cas. 118; State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 58 L.R.A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1098; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 50 Am. St. Rep. 443, 31 S. W. 781. The Kansas Court of Industrial Relations Act is void as a denial of liberty of contract, as guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U. S. 1, 59 L. ed. 441, L.R.A.1915C, 960, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 161, 174, 52 L. ed. 436, 442, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. Cas. 764; Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 589, 41 L. ed. 832, 835, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Braceville Coal Co. v. People, 147 Ill. 66, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 340, 37 Am. St. Rep. 206, 35 N. E. 62; Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U. S. 229, 251, 62 L. ed. 260, 276, L.R.A.1918C, 497, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 461; Coffeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. Perry, 69 Kan. 297, 66 L.R.A. 185, 76 Pac. 848, 1 Ann. Cas. 936; Butchers' Union S. H. & L. S. L. Co. v. Crescent City L. S. L. & S. H. Co. 111 U. S. 746, 28 L. ed. 585, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652; Powell V. Pennsylvania, 127 U. S. 678, 32 L. ed. 253, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 992, 1257; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 61 L. ed. 1336, L.R.A. 1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 383; Colyer v. Skeffington, 265 Fed. 62; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163, 29 L.R.A. 257, 31 S. W. 781; Gillespie v. People, 188 Ill. 176, 52 L.R.A. 283, 80 Am. St. Rep. 176, 58 N. E. 1007; State ex rel. Zillmer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 58 L.R.A. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1098; People v. Marcus, 185 N. Y. 257, 7 L.R.A.(N.S.) 282, 113 Am. St. Rep. 902, 77 N. E. 1073, 7 Ann. Cas. 118. The void sections of the act are so intermingled with the other sections as to cause the whole act to fall. 1053; Brown v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. 115 Ga. 429, 57 L.R.A. 547, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126, 41 S. E. 553; State v. Cudahy Packing Co. 33 Mont. 179, 114 Am. St. Rep. 804, 82 Pac. 833, 8 Ann. Cas. 717. Messrs. Moorfield Storey and John G. Egan argued the cause, and, with Mr. Richard J. Hopkins, Attorney General of Kansas, and Messrs. Harold S. Davis and Baxter D. McClain, filed a brief for defendant in error: The case presents no Federal question. Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co. 221 U. S. 418, 450, 55 L. ed. 797, 809, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 874, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 492; Schwartz v. United States, 133 C. C. A. 576, 217 Fed. 866; Broughan v. Oceanic Steam Nav. Co. 126 C. C. A. 321, 205 Fed. 857; State ex rel. De Geer v. Pierce, 51 Kan. 241, 32 Pac. 924; Billard v. Erhart, 35 Kan. 616, 12 Pac. 42; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 600, 39 L. ed. 1108, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 900; Southern P. Co. v. Schuyler, 227 U. S. 601, 57 L. ed. 662, 43 L.R.A. (N.S.) 901, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277; Leathe v. Thomas, 207 U. S. 93, 52 L. ed. 118, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 30; Giles v. Teasley, 193 U. S. 146, 48 L. ed. 655, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359; Hopkins v. McLure, 133 U. S. 380, 33 L. ed. 660, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407; Hale v. Akers, 132 U. S. 554, 33 L. ed. 442, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 171. The Kansas court had power, without statute authority, to issue the permanent injunction and the decree appealed from in No. 491. Kearney v. Denn, 15 Wall. 51, 21 L. ed. 41; Nashua Sav. Bank v. AngloAmerican Land Mortg. & Agency Co. 189 U. S. 221, 47 L. ed. 782, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 517; Corinne Mill, Canal & Stock Co. v. Johnson, 156 U. S. 574, 39 L. ed. 537, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409; Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 39 L. ed. 1092, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 900; Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 272, 62 L. ed. 1105, 3 A.L.R. 649, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 529, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 724; Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 257 U. S. 129, ante, 166, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 42. The injunction was authorized by the Kansas statute establishing the court of industrial relations, which is constitutional. Gallagher v. People, 211 Ill. 158, 71 N. E. 842; Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 427, 45 L. ed. 1165, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. U. S. 540, 561, 46 L. ed. 679, 690, 22 836; Kansas v. Ziebold, 123 U. S. 623, Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; McFarland v. Ameri- 670, 31 L. ed. 205, 213, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. can Sugar Ref. Co. 241 U. S. 79, 87, 60273; Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. L. ed. 899, 904, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; 516, 28 L. ed. 232, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111, State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Waters-Pierce 292; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, Oil Co. Tex. Civ. App. 67 S. W.23 L. ed. 678. It is competent for a state to declare, 778, 104 N. E. 841; Pickett v. Walsh, that strikes shall be unlawful generally. 192 Mass. 572, 6 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1067, 116 Com. v. Hunt, Thacher, Crim. Cas. Am. St. Rep. 272, 78 N. E. 753, 7 Ann. 609; Rex v. Journeymen Tailors, 8 Mod. Cas. 638; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 11, 88 Eng. Reprint, 10; Rex v. Maw- 3 Am. St. Rep. 23, 8 Atl. 890; Com. v. bey, 6 T. R. 636, 101 Eng. Reprint, 745, Curren, 3 Pittsb. 143; State v. Donaldson, 3 Revised Rep. 282; Walsby v. Anley, 32 N. J. L. 151, 90 Am. Dec. 649; Lucke 3 El. & El. 523, 121 Eng. Reprint, 538, v. Clothing Cutters' & T. Assembly, 77 30 L. J. Mag. Cas. N. S. 121, 7 Jur. N. S. Md. 402, 19 L.R.A. 408, 39 Am. St. Rep. 465, 3 L. T. N. S. 666, 9 Week. Rep. 421, 26 Atl. 505; Erdman v. Mitchell, 271; People v. Melvin, 2 Wheeler, C. C. 207 Pa. 79, 63 L.R.A. 534, 99 Am. St. 262; People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. 9, 28 Rep. 783, 56 Atl. 327; State v. Stewart, Am. Dec. 501; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 59 Vt. 273, 59 Am. Rep. 710, 9 Atl. 559; 425, 23 L.R.A. 135, 39 Am. St. Rep. 686, Coons v. Chrystie, 24 Misc. 296, 53 N. Y. 28 Atl. 190; Quinn v. Leathem [1901] Supp. 668; State v. Dalton, 134 Mo. App. A. C. 526, 1 B. Ř. C. 197, 70 L. J. P. C. N. 517, 114 S. W. 1132; People v. BaronS. 76, 65 J. P. 708, 50 Week. Rep. 139, dess, 133 N. Y. 649, 31 N. E. 241; Angle 85 L. T. N. S. 289, 17 Times L. R. 749, v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 151 27 Eng. Rul. Cas. 66; Reg. v. Bunn, 12 U. S. 1, 13-15, 38 L. ed. 55, 62, 63, 14 Cox, C. C. 316; Springhead Spinning Co. Sup. Ct. Rep. 240; Tubular Rivet & Stud v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 551, 37 L. J. Ch. Co. v. Exeter Boot & Shoe Co. 86 C. C. N. S. 889, 19 L. T. N. S. 64, 16 Week. A. 648, 159 Fed. 830; People v. United Rep. 1138; King v. Ohio & M. R. Co. Mine Workers, 70 Colo. 269, 201 Pac. 7 Biss. 537, Fed. Cas. No. 7,800; Thomas 54; New York C. R. Co. v. White, 243 v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 4 U. S. 188, 198, 61 L. ed. 667, 672, L.R.A. Inters. Com. Rep. 788, 62 Fed. 803; Old 1917D, 1, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247, Ann. Cas. Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna, 30 1917D, 629, 13 N. C. C. A. 943; Laurel Fed. 48; Employing Printers Club v. Hill Cemetery v. San Francisco, 216 Dr. Blosser Co. 122 Ga. 509, 69 L.R.A. U. S. 358, 365, 54 L. ed. 515, 518, 30 95, 106 Am. St. Rep. 137, 50 S. E. 353, Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; Chicago Dock & 2 Ann. Cas. 694; Vegelahn v. Guntner, Canal Co. v. Fraley, 228 U. S. 680, 686, 167 Mass. 92, 35 L.R.A. 722, 57 Am. St. 57 L. ed. 1022, 1024, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. Rep. 443, 44 N. E. 1077; South Wales 715; Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. Miners' Federation v. Glamorgan Coal 685, 699, 58 L. ed. 1155, 1160, 51 L.R.A. Co. [1905] A. C. 244, 1 B. R. C. 1, 74 (N.S.) 1097, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 761; Hebe L. J. K. B. N. S. 525, 53 Week. Rep. Co. v. Shaw, 248 U. S. 297, 63 L. ed. 593, 92 L. T. N. S. 710, 21 Times L. R. 255, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 125; Purity Ex441, 2 Ann. Cas. 436; Walker v. Cronin, tract & Tonic Co. v. Lynch, 226 U. S. 107 Mass. 555; Thacker Coal & Coke Co. 192, 57 L. ed. 184, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 44; v. Burke, 59 W. Va. 253, 5 L.R.A. (N.S.) Dominion Hotel v. Arizona, 249 U. S. 1091, 53 S. E. 161, 8 Ann. Cas. 885; 265, 268, 63 L. ed. 597, 598, 39 Sup. Ct. Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Rep. 273; Middleton v. Texas Power & R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 788, 62 Fed. Light Co. 249 U. S. 152, 63 L. ed. 527, 818; Folsom v. Lewis, 208 Mass. 336, 35 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Mountain Timber L.R.A. (N.S.) 787, 94 N. E. 316; Maps Co. v. Washington, 243 U. S. 219, 61 trick v. Range, 9 Neb. 390, 31 Am. Rep. L. ed. 685, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 260, Ann. 415, 2 N. W. 739; Hitchman Coal & Coke Cas. 1917D, 642, 13 N. C. C. A. 927; Co. v. Mitchell, 202 Fed. 549, 245 U. S. Mutual Loan Co. v. Martel, 222 U. S. 229, 62 L. ed. 260, L.R.A.1918C, 497, 38 225, 56 L. ed. 175, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 74, Sup. Ct. Rep. 65, Ann. Cas. 1918B, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 529; Drew v. Thaw, 461; George Jonas Glass Co. v. Glass 235 U. S. 432, 59 L. ed. 302, 35 Sup. Bottle Blowers' Asso. 77 N. J. Eq. Ct. Rep. 137; Aikens v. Wisconsin, 195 221, 41 L.R.A.(N.S.) 445, 79 Atl. 262; U. S. 194, 49 L. ed. 154, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. Waterhouse v. Comer, 19 L.R.A. 403, 3; Loewe v. California State Federation 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 564, 55 Fed. 155; of Labor, 139 Fed. 84; Burnham v. Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co. v. Dowd, 217 Mass. 351, 51 L.R.A. 784, 104 Pennsylvania Co. 19 L.R.A. 387, 5 N. E. 841; Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v. Inters. Com. Rep. 522, 54 Fed. 746; People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 775; FrankUnited States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. 801; lin Union v. People, 220 Ill. 355, 4 W. P. Davis Mach. Co. v. Robinson, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1013, 110 Am. St. Rep. Misc. 329, 84 N. Y. Supp. 839; Hopkins 248. 77 N. E. 176; State ex rel. Hadley v. Oxley Stave Co. 28 C. C. A. 99, 49 v. Kansas City Live Stock Exch. 211 Mo. U. S. App. 709, 83 Fed. 912; Burnham 181, 124 Am. St. Rep. 776, 109 S. W. v. Dowd, 217 Mass. 356, 51 L.R.A. (N.S.) | 780; Lohse Patent Door Co. v. Fuelle, 215 Mo. 421, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 607, 128 Am. St. Rep. 492, 114 S. W. 1012; State v. Dalton, 134 Mo. App. 535, 114 S. W. 1132; State ex rel. Durner v. Huegin, 110 Wis. 189, 62 L.R.A. 700, 85 N. W. 1065; Brown v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. 115 Ga. 431, 57 L.R.A. 554, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126, 41 S. E. 553; Bailey v. Master Plumbers' Asso. 103 Tenn. 99, 46 L.R.A. 564, 52 S. W. 853; Vertue v. Clive, 4 Burr. 2472, 98 Eng. Reprint, 296; Clifford v. Brandon, 2 Campb. 369, 11 Revised Rep. 731; Re Lennon, 166 U. S. 548, 557, 41 L. ed. 1110, 1114, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 658. There is no constitutional right to strike. Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U. S. 219, 246, 55 L. ed. 191, 203, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 145; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 488, 65 L. ed. 349, 365, 16 A.L.R. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172; Arizona Employers' Liability Cases (Arizona Copper Co. v. Hammer) 250 U. S. 400, 425, 63 L. ed. 1058, 1068, 6 A.L.R. 1537, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, ante, 254, A.L.R. 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124. The injunction may be supported on the power of the state to regulate industries affected by a public use. 757, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 670, 14 Sup. The strike attacked the constitutional rights of the fuel company and its customers. Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U. S. 340, 60 L. ed. 1034, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561, Ann. Cas. 1917C, 522; Adams v. Tanner, 244 U. S. 590, 61 L. ed. 1336, L.R.A.1917F, 1163, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 662, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 973; Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 62 L. ed. 149, L.R.A.1918C, 210, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 16, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 1201; People v. Rosenburg, 59 Misc. 342, 112 N. Y. Supp. 316; Baldwin v. Escanaba Liquor Dealers' Asso. 165 Mich. 98, 130 N. W. 220; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Bogni v. Perotti, 224 Mass. 152, L.R.A.1916F, 831, 112 N. E. 853; State ex rel. Sampson v. Sheridan, 25 Wyo. 347, 1 A.L.R. 955, 170 Pac. 3. There has been no violation of any liberty of the plaintiffs in error. Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 350, Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 49 351, 61 L. ed. 755, 774, 775, L.R.A.1917E, L. ed. 546, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Mani938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Cas. gault v. Springs Co. 199 U. S. 473, 50 1918A, 1024; Jones v. Portland, 245 L. ed. 274, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 127; Grand U. S. 217, 221, 62 L. ed. 252, 255, L.R.A. Trunk Western R. Co. v. Railroad Com1918C, 765, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 112, Ann. mission, 221 U. S. 400, 55 L. ed. 786, 31 Cas. 1918E, 660; Walls v. Midland Car- Sup. Ct. Rep. 537; Central Lumber Co. bon Co. 254 U. S. 300, 65 L. ed. 276, v. South Dakota, 226 U. S. 157, 161, 57 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 118; Lower Vein Coal L. ed. 164, 170, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Co. v. Industrial Bd. 255 U. S. 144, 65 National Safety Deposit Co. v. Stead, L. ed. 555, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 252; Ameri- 232 U. S. 58, 70, 58 L. ed. 504, 511, 34 can Coal & Min. Co. v. Special Coal & Sup. Ct. Rep. 209; German Alliance Ins. Food Commission, 268 Fed. 563; State Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 58 L. ed. 1011, v. Barrett, 172 Ind. 179, 87 N. E. 11; L.R.A.1915C, 1189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. Rail & River Coal Co. v. Yaple, 236 U. S. 612; New York C. R. Co. v. White, 243 338, 59 L. ed. 607, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359, U. S. 188, 61 L. ed. 667, L.R.A.1917D, affirming 214 Fed. 273; Green v. Frazier, 1, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 241, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 253 U. S. 233, 64 L. ed. 878, 40 Sup. 629, 13 N. C. C. A. 943; Wilson v. New, Ct. Rep. 499; Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 243 U. S. 332, 61 L. ed. 755, L.R.A. 135, 65 L. ed. 865, 16 A.L.R. 165, 411917E, 938, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298, Ann. Sup. Ct. Rep. 458; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465; Mt. Vernon-Woodberry Cotton Duck Co. v. Alabama Interstate Power Co. 240 U. S. 30, 60 L. ed. 507, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; German Alliance Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 233 U. S. 389, 58 L. ed. 1011, L.R.A.1915C, 1189, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 612; Noble State Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 49 Bank v. Haskell, 219 U. S. 104, 55 L. ed. L. ed. 546, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 289; Ohio 112, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. ex rel. Lloyd v. Dollison, 194 U. S. 445, Rep. 186. Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487; Brass v. 48 L. ed. 1062, 1065, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. North Dakota, 153 U. S. 391, 38 L. ed. 1703; Wilmington Star Min. Co. v. Ful Cas. 1918A, 1024; Middleton v. Texas Power & Light Co. 249 U. S. 152, 162, 63 L. ed. 527, 534, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; Marcus Brown Holding Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170, 65 L. ed. 877, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 465. There has been no denial of the equal protection of the law. |