The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1903-08-08
PICKBTING DECLARED
TO Be NOT ILLEGAL
FOUR JUDGES UPHOLD ORGAN.
lied LABOR.
WILL HELP THE
CONSERVATIVES,
No Limit Placed on the Number OF
Pickets AIIowable-Must Be
No Force.

-Four judges within the past week
have decided that union men are legally
privileged to peacefully picket shops
"nere strikes are in progress, and are
within their rights in trying to persuade
non-union employees to quit work. This
is directly in line with the claims of
trade union men and women every
where, and it emphasizes the fact that
labor organizations need only employ
the right kind of lawyers and bring
their contentious before the right kind
OF judges when they are sure to OBJ
tain favorable decisions.
The four judges who have just given
decisions in favor Of the right to peac-
ably picket are Judges Kavanagh of
Chicago, Hemphill Of Pennsylvania,
Kelly of Minnesota, and Donovan of
Michigan. In every instance the de-
mand of the employers that picketing
be declared illegal and contrary to good
order was denied, while at the same
time the union men were warned
against any forceful efforts to prevent
others going to work.
Victories Worth Recording.
Here are victories that organized
labor will do we'll to make the most Of
in the way Of bringing to the attention
OF other courts the fact that there are
Judges who refuse to grant injunctions
on ex-parte statements, and who also
uphold the right of union men and
women to peacably persuade others to
join them in the endeavor to improve
their social condition and industrial
surroundings.
The case before Judge Marcus A.
Kavanagh was charge Of contempt
of court against four members of Iron
Molders' Union No. 372 in disobeyinx an
injunction Of Judge Holdom who holds
that strikers have no rights the police
or courts are bound to respect. Gus.
Darchefski, Max Liecz, Michael Smith,
and William Skoner, were charged with
having violated an injunction granted
the Illinois Malleable Iron Works, re-
straining workers from picketing the;
plant ORC sdissa uding non- -unio on men from
..esli TAs.a a,aQ1
4 from prfVaf deteetives and non-.unfon
employees were presented to sustain TIE.
company's charge that its former en-
ployes had overstepped the baunds laid
down by Judge Holdom in his restrain
ing order.
Strong Language.
After Judge Kavanagh had heard
read the ex-parte affidavits Of the COM
plainants, he said:
Il will not send men to Jail upon affi-
davits. This is a serious charge and
the men who make it must come into
court and face the men they accuse.
Picketing in a peacable manner is
not unlawful, and persuasion by union
men to prevent other men from work.
ing is right Of which they should not
be deprived.
Union men must bear in mind, how
ever, that they are privileged to enjoy
their rights of picketing and persuasion
only so long as they do so in peacable
manner. When they break the laws of
the land by rioting and fighting they
must suffer the punishment I know of
no one who believes more in the good
of labor unions than I, but I would
punish severely union men who violat-
ed the law.
Let me impress upon the representa-
tlvesof the union what the limits of
their rights of picketing are. They may
place as many pickets as they please
about plants where striges are in pro-
gress sa lonk as those pickets do not
throw bricks, fight Or use opporbrious
language. They may assost other
wokers openly and appeal to them by
all methods of persuasion that are not
threatening or coercive
When violence is begun, however, the
law cannot distinguish between those
who are guilty and those who are not,
and it becomes the duty of the officers
of the law and the court to stop at those
times practices that are not ordinarily
obnoxious to the law
The Decision Explained.
Interviewed as to the full meaning
of his decision, Judge Kavanagh said:
"Picketing is not crime. It may
have become so regarded by persons
who associate picketing with violence,
There is no reason who a picket should
commit violence. 1t is not to be in
ferred that he will. 1t is enough to take
notice of it when he does There is no
violation of the law in stoppin man
to speak with him or to walk along
and continue speaking to him. The law
must govern in such cases..
do not see anything novel in nv
ruling that witnesses must come into
court in contempt cases. It has long
been established that the accused shall
have the right to, confront his accuser
and subject him to cross-examination.