The Birmingham age-herald., 1903-02-02

right, but for the purpose of obstruction, would if damage should be caused there by, to the party obstrueted be viola tion of this prohibition; and the viola tion of this prohibition by single per- son Is a wrong, to be remedied either by action or indictment, as the case may be-
 It is equally wrong, whether it be done by one or many, subject to this observa- tion, that a combination Of many to do a wrong in a matter where the public has an interest, Is a substantive offense of conspiracy" Davis vs. Zimmerman, 39 N. Y. Supp. BOA
 The next question that arises is: Do the acts which 1t is alleged to have been done. by the respondents, constitute such obstruction of complainants business as amount to actionable wrongs? The deci- sions are almost unanimous in affirming that such acts are actionable wrongs. In the case of Vegelahn vs. Gunter, Mass. 35 L. R. A. 722 1t was held that patrollng or picketing was in itself, unlawful. The court says: intimidation Is not limited to threats of violence, or of physical in Jury to person or property. It has a broader signiflcation, and there also may be a moral intimidation, which is illegal. Patrolling or picketing, under the circum- stances, stated in the report has ele- ments of intimidation, like those which were found to exist in Sherry vs. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212 It was declared to be un- lawful in Reg. vs. Hilbert, IS Cox c. c. S2, Reg. vs. Druitt, 16 Cox c. G. 592; Reg. vs Bauld, Id. 2S2. The patrol was an un- lawful interference, both with the plaintiff and with the workmen, within the princi- pie or many cases; and when instituted for the purpose of interfering with his business 1t became a private nuisance" In American Steel and Wire company vs. Wire Drawers union, 90 Fed. Rep. 612 1t was held that the use, by strikers. of the streets in the vicinity of a manufac- turing plant, for the purpose of picketlng, was an unlawful use of the highways, and constituted nuisance. In his opin- ion Judge Hammond says: 'It was fre- quently urged in argument that the strik- CTS have right to the streets and So they have, so long as they do not tres pass on the rights of other to use them. The right of the use of streets by anyone Is qualified right. The owner of a house, be 1t dwelling house, storehouse or millhoase, has a distinct right of prop erty in the streets adjacent thereto, and used as approaches to It. It is the right of access-free and uninterrupted ingress and egress. Anyone who uses the streets must use them subject to this right of the householder; and there Is not par ticle Of difference, in respect to this, be- tween dwelling house and a millhouse or large factory, employing large bodies of men, who always go to the polls and vote at elections, and sometimes go out on a strike. Nor is the freedom of contract by assumed peculiarities of conditions attending the struggles of men in the economic conflicts between laborers and capitalists. nor by any considerable of public policy in respect to these con- f1icts. If anyone violate the right of the householder to the streets that are experiment to his property, as a part of 1t, by impairing his ingress cnd egress, he has civil action, and he may also abate 1t by injunction, in equity as a private nuisance" The court in commenting upon the right of freedom of contract goes on to say, at page SIS: "It is the right not so much of property as of that liberty which every man enjoys in this country as his birthright, which Is not confined to political rights alone but extends as we'll to per- sonal activities in and about ones daily business, be he laborer or capitalists; it Is this right which lies at the foundation of the strikers own freedom, when they would work or refuse to work on any terms but their own; 1t is a right the striker cannot lawfully deny to the "scab"-the right to pass freely through the streets and highways to his work. In this country this right to contract in business is a constitutional freedom, which mot even state legislature can inn pair; and certainly not strike organiza- tions. for surely they cannot lawfully do what the legislature may not. In the case of Beck vs Railway Teamsters' Protective union, (Mich.) 42 L. R. A.
 407, the same complaints, of picketing and intimidation by strikers were made, as are described in the bill in this cause
 In the report of the case the bill of com plaint Is set out substantially in full and 1t Is very similar to the one in the case at bar. An injunction was awarded against all the acts of the strikers com plained of. The court, by Chief Justice Grant, says: Their (the strikers) coun- sell frankly concede that 1t was unlawful for defendants to enter upon the premises of the complainants or to gather in groups in the street in front of com plainant's premises, or to use any force or violence for the accomplishment of their purposes In other words they con- cede that defendants were engaged in an unlawful conspiracy, as defined by Shaw. c. J.. in Com. vs Hunt. net Ill, 121 a definition approved by the Supreme court of the United States in Cullom vs Wilson, 127 U. s. 540." Continuing the court says dL pdBt flO. lo piChtt COHlpidindDL 5 premises, in order to intercept their team sters or persons going there to trade, is unlawful. It itself Is an act of intimida- ton, and on unwarrantable interference with the right of trade. The highways and public streets must be free to all for the purposes of trade, commerce and labor. The law protects the buyer. seller, the merchant the manufacturer and the laborer in the right to walk and use the streets unmolested. It is no respecter of persons; and 1t makes no difference in effect, whether the picketing is done ten or one thousand feet away It will not do to say that these pickets are thrown out for the purpose of peacable argu- ment and persuasion. They are intended to intimidate and coerce.'
 The acts of the respondents not only violate property rights of the complainant by obstructing it's business, and by the creation of a nuisance in patroling the streets upon which its properly abuts, but they are subversive of the rights of per- sonal freedom of the non-union employees of complainant. The respondents have no more legal right to use violence against such employees and to coerce their wills than they have to actually trespass upon the premises of complainant Not only has the complainant the undoubted right to employ such persons as choose to engage in its service. but all persons who have the capacity to contract, have a lawful right to work for complainant upon such terms as may be mutually sat- isfactory. And embraced in this right they have the further right to be protect ed from molestation and intimidation in going to and from their place of labor and in their homes. and also the right to be protected from insult and contumely! from having opprobrious epithets used aaainst them. as well as iumlinItv frora