New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-12-17
CAN'T ENJ0IN PICKETING.
La1cful If Without Violence, An.
peItate DiUision Holds.

In decision handed down yesterday the Aup..
late Division % the Supreme Court BrookIvn
holds that the employees OF a concern cannot h.
cnjOined from organizing strike nor from uIckst
ing shop in II Is done without violence III.
decision was handed down in the suits brourh. Nv
William f Mills. George II. Driscol and William
Kissam. employees Of the United States Printbrs
Company Of Ohio. 70 prevent the concern from DIS
charging them. under agreement made with thu
International stereotypers and Electrotypers Unor
and New-York SteTeOtypeTs' Union No. /. and IN
prevent the unions from attempting 70 force IN.
the company to carry out the agreement by Or
ganizing strike bOycotting picketing or IN other
ways interfering with its business
in Special Term of the Supreme Court. Brookiy,
some months ago, Justice Dickey refused 20 su5oin
the printing company from discharging its en-
ployes. but did enioin the unions from organizsaz
a strike boycOttng and picketing. In his opinion
Justice jerks. OF the Appellate Division. says the
injunction against organizing a strike canno.
stand. That the injunction against picksting ana
boycOtting runs too broad. but that the Injunction
against the printing company rightly dsn!sd
Regarding striking. Justice jerks says TIA,
man who has not bound himself to his master Nv
contract cannot be bound him by law ana
therefore he may quit his work II the conditions
are not to his liking. What one may lawfully a.
alone he may do in concert; hence a strike Ia M,
per unlawful
Regarding picketng. the opinion says:
'Picketng'' may simply mean the stationins O.
men tor observation II in the doing OF this act
Sp p LOT Sucn purpose, there Dc no moestat!ol
person. then it cannot be said that such an ac; =
the stationng of man or men to Soerc se or s. =
threaten. or to intimidate halt or TO urn
and from the picketed place to do business or 10
work or 70 seek work therein. in some Othsr way
20 hamper. hinder harass the free dispatch o.
msy ws 0 ga the d employed In that case Pcsn
the inlunctive order lies the fact that this word
Ili"'iIined' may signify a lawful act. I may add
which goes no further than persuasion and en-,
vrePl or ., nose " no are about to work or seek
sSptatiey lawful wayfsrer on the public streets
nv viii ba 10 5o pa IuI traveL No man against
street TO arrest my course or TO jOin me on M
ence There may be no intimidston and VET an ~
ruPTh OF PeaceIul travel There may be annoy
The agreement against which the plaintiffs corB
planned was that the company should employ none
but union men. and should discharge all who rs
FUSED to join the unions. 10 was signed After
strike and boycott lasting thirteen months Re-
garding the agreement Justice jerks says:
If the employer preferred to have thssA vvor,nss,
work for him on the conditions that he should en-
and settle the hours Of labor than to have them
strike and organize a boycott. l cannot see way
IN the exercise Of It's rights 70 regulate is own
affairs ii could not follow this course and make
the agreement
IL f her PARTY to The g2ntEsSt seeking 70 AVOID
ne chooses and the employees have the right work
as they may impose, IL outsider to be heard that
the agreement between employer and emplOye must
not Dc performed because perfOrce thereof the
poyer can no longer keep him in service How
can he be heard unless he has vested right q
retention by his employer Assume that the agTse-
ment IS performed. what results TO the plaintiffs
who refuse 70 Join the union? Their discharge from
this employment But is not the employer free %
discharge them even without reason or for aay
reasons which may to him sufficient no mat
ter how shortsiKhted. unjust arbitrary? hide
pendent OF the obligation of contract, the workman
may quit employment and the master may Dis
charge the workman. beyond the interference OF
courts If the employer can compel the employs %
work against the iatter's viii. this Is servi-
10 give him work against the employers will this
is oppression. II the courts sit 10 prevent ds
charges OF workmen to require wOTkmen 10 re-
visitatoral function beyond my ideas OF their
province
The fact that OF the plaintiffs was a stock-
holder of the company Justice jerks said MAJ
no difference. he bound by the action q.
the directors.
Justice jerks then declared that the injunction
order must be modified according to his opinion
pending the trial Of the suit
General Wingate, counsel for Of the stock
holders was inclined to believe last night tha-
ali the lawyers would accept the modified order
and move the trial rather than so to the Court