The morning call., 1893-07-19
UNION PICKETS.
Important Decision by
Judge Low.
The Case of the People Against
Matthew rlulhearn Dismissed.
No Obnoxious Conduct.

"a
was decided yesterday by Judge Low.
Matthew Muhearn. one OF the pickets Of
the men on strike at Morris Windt's tan
merry, at Twenty sixth street and San
Bruno road, was charged by w. L. Russell.
bookkeeper at the tannery, with disturb
ing the peace in being guilty of offensive
conduct. MulhearD, it appeared, spoke TO
d. O'Keefe, one of the men who have taken
the place of the striBers. on July 3, while
he was going to his work.
The charge was heard on Friday last
Attorney Thomas E. Curran appearing for
the defendant and Attorney Craig for the
prosecution, and yesterday the Judge rem
dered the following inte resting decision:
The defendant is charged with disturbing the
peace and she question Is whether the acts
complained Of and proven constitute breach
of the peace under section 415 OF the Penal
Code.
Ii is not claimed that the defendant was
guilty OF making any loud or unusual noise,"
or that he was tumultuous or threatening, ira
ducing, Quarreling. challenging to hight or fight
ing. or tnat be used any vulgar, profane OF ln-
decent language within the presence or hearing
OF women or children ID louo ana D0lSter0u5
manner or al all.
But il is claimed that his conduct was
offensive. The offensive conduct consisted in
accosiing persons going to the tannery Of the
employer of the complaining witness and dis
suadng them from seeking employment there
| on account OF an existing strike.
The right Of employees to combine for SELF
protection and The right Of employers TO say
| who shall and who shall not be employed by
| Them is a question not necessary 10 be consld-
|. cred at this time, and sharp line should be
drawn between acts committed by Strikers
which are criminal In themselves, Irrespective
OF WHO The persons are who may be gully OIL
them, and a line of conduct which may posi-
bly, cause damage for which civil action might
perhaps be maintained. Tho evident purpose
Of this prosecution Is to put an end TO system
of espionage carried on by the scouts" Of the
Tanners Union against the taDnery In question.
On the part OF the defendant It is claimed
that he aud his companions have not been
guilty Of any iude bOisterouS or unseemly con-
duct, and while II is frankly admitted that they
have used their best endeavors to prevent men
from engaging 10 work for Mr.. Windt, the
owner of the boycoIted tannery, they distinctly
dlsavow the Use OF violence, and this, so lar as
| the evidence in this case goes, Is true.
The witnesses for the people testified that
| the defendant stepped within the gateway Of
the tannery. This is fatty and strenuously
| contradlcted by defendant aud his witnesses.
| But even So the question Is simply whether
| inducing men not 10 go TO work for particular
! employer unacc0mpauled by any loud, bolster
| Gus, vulgar or profane language, lighting or
| threats OF any kind. constitutes distur urbance
of the peace as defined by section 415 Of the
| code.
The offensive conduct Is in trying to induce
| men not 10 take service in Mr.. Windrs employ.
| There is not the least doubt that IL would not
have been disturbance OF the peace had tie
| defendant presented his arguments to persons
intending TO seek employment there at some
| other place blocks away from the tannary, and
| yet the conduct would have been just as much
| 'otfensive conduct" had MIR. Windt learned Of
1t as though It had taken place IN The street at
| point ne ar the tannery. The place at which
| the arguments are used, II appears then. makes
il a breach OF the peace or not, as the case
may be.
| Ii discussing labor questions In the neighbor-
| hood of the employers premises, In an orderly
manner, may be punished as breach OF the
| peace, why may not have man arrested and
| punished who discusses religion Or politics as
| he leans against the fence Of my front yard be-
| cause his views do not coincide with my own ?
| Should The couple standing ia front OF my house
raise their voices and make a great deal of
| noise, or use foul language or quarrel and fight
| so that am deprived OF the quiet and comfort
| of my home then may have them arrested and
| punished for disturbing my peace. and the man
| whose views religion or potics are the
same as my own IS equally guilty with the other
| disputant. l take IL then that offensive con-
duet does not mean what the prosecution would
have 1t mean, namely, any conduct that is dis
agreeable, as affecting ones interests, or that
causes injury or damage. 1t must go further
aud become obnoxious, accompanied by loud
or unusual d Doise, tumultuous, and tend to dis
turb the public peace as well as the peace OF
the prosecuting witness.
And here 1t may be as we'll to observe that
the acts chiefly complained oI-talklng to peO-
pie going TO the tannery-could not have dis
turbed the complaining witness. as he was not
one OF the prOpriet0rS OF the tannery but
merely an employe How he can say his peace
and quiet were disturbed by the defendant
talking 10 some man who was on his way TO
the tannery to seek employment fail to un-
derstand.
II l am correct In my views of this case the
defendant should be discharged and it is SO