Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1905-10-18
Judge Holdom Rules That All
Forms Of Picketing Are
Illegal
DECISION is A SWEEPING ONE
If Sustained by the Higher Court, It
Will be the Hardest Blow Unionlsrn
Ever Received In the United States
ANY Attempt to Force Eight Hour
Day Declared Illegal.

Chicago, Oct. 1S.-In an opinion
handed down yesterday Judge Holdom
declared that any attempt to force an
employer to sign a contract providing
for the eight-hour day and the closed
shop was unlawful. He gave the de-
cision in sustaining the injunction
against the members of Typographical
union No. 16, issued last week upon
application of the firms composing the
Chicago Typothetae.
Through it's attorneys, former Judge
sought to have the injunction dissolved.
Judge Holdom's decision disposed or
that question for the time being, al
though the union was given leave 10
renew it's motion later.
The decision of Judge Holdom up
holding the injunction was expected. 1t
was his declaration that any attempt
to force a closed shop and eight hour
day contract ON an employer was IL
legal that attracted attention. If sus-
CdlItd ny tlG upper COURTS tIIc deClSlOll
will be one of the hardest blows labor
unions have yet received at the hands
of the judiciary. 1t is considered even
more important than the recent decis-
ion of the appellate court that there
was no such thing as peaceful pickett
ing and that picketing of any kind
was Illegal.
Judge Holdom left no room for MIS-
take as to his intention to declare an
attempt to force the signing OF closed
shop and eight hour day contract IL
legal.
Coercion Illegal.
"The foundation of the strike in this
case is the union contract demanding a
closed shop and an eight-hour day"
said the judge. Both the closed shop
and the eight-hour day are unlawful
when 1t is attempted to coerce theiem-
ployer into 1t against his will
"The United States supreme cour.
held that the sovereign power of the
state of New York could not force an
eight-hour day upon the employer, ana
what the sovereign power Of a state
can not do can not be done by any
other power, and the union of labor
like all others, whether natural or ar
tlhc1al persons, must yield to it's prin-
ciples whenever they conflict with the
law of the land"
Former Judge Barnum, attorney for
the printers. argued that the union he
represented had a right to order a
strike. He also declared that in carry :
ing on the strike 1t had the right to
send out pickets and these pickets had
the right to endeavor to entice nom
union employees of printing houses
from their work. In declaring that
pickets had the right to entice away
non union men he asserted that Offer
ing them positions elsewhere was sim
ply engaging in lawful competition
with the employers who brought them
to the city.
Union Contention Denied.
These arguments were declared to
be fallacious by Judge Holdom.
Can the defendant union or its Of
ficers or its members consistently be
said to be the competitors of the COM
plainants?" he asked "The union can
not be said to be engaged in the print
ing business. neither can it's members
except when they are working for the
complainants or others In the same
line of business.
"The union and it's members, so far
as the bill and the affidavits disclose
are at present engaged in the unlawful
enterprise Of endeavoring by unlawful
means to force upon the complainants
an unlawful contract of closed shop, an
eight-hour working day, and using
threats, intimidation, the picket line
bribery and the boycott as a means
to the end. Such an enterprise is In
the highest sense unlawful and in some
Of it's elements of force and violence
criminal"
1t was argued by the attorneys for
the printers that it was lawful for
their clients to engage in what they
termed peaceful picketing." They ar
gued that in the present strike no vio-
lence had been resorted to by members
of the union and that men at work in
the printing plants had not even been
threatened. It was admitted, however,
that bribes had been offered bv pickets
to non-union men to desert their en-
ployers
Picketinu Held Unlawful.
In discussing the question of peace
full picketing" judge Holdom quoted
the opinion recently handed down by
Judge Smith of the appellate court
and declared he believed from reading
the bill and affidavits of the Typoth-
etae that the picketing INDUCED in by
the printers annoyed non -union men.
on that ground he declared it was un-
lawful.
industrial strife is progressive in it's
methods said Judge Holdom. while
picketing was. formerly not unlawful
per Sc. yet when picketing and boycott
ting are INDUCED in as means to the
end of forcing a closed shop on an en-
plover AGAINST his will they become un-
lawful methods"
MAsoNS IN BIENNIAL SESSION.