Ottumwa tri-weekly courier., 1908-04-21

way Teamsters Union AZ, L. R. A. 407
and also in Massachusetts in the case
of Vegelahn VS. Guntner 35 l.. R. A.
1872, but in this case the doctrine was
approved by a divided court. This
seems to be the rule adopted in the
Federal courts and has also been ap-
trary some Of the text writer's hold
firmly to the contrary view that picket
ing, In and OF itself, is not unlawful.
Is is stated by High in his work on ~
functions that an organized system
Of picketing, when conducted in an
orderly and peaceable manner, is
perfectly lawful and therefore affords
no ground for relief by injunction To
the same effect is 6 Pomeroy Equity,
Sec. $685. 595 and GOA. Also "a Cyc
S31 and numerous authorities cited
under note 81 In fact the modern
authorities in the light of recent con
ditions take the more liberal view that
picketing may be peaceably and law
fully conducted and that in and of
itself Is not unlawful A well con-
sidered case upon this proposition is
that of Evertt Waddy Co. VS. Richmond
Typographical union being a Virginia
case decided March 15, 1906, and re-
ported in 5 l.. r. A. IN. 50 1892 In
fact the decided weight authority
seems to support the doctrine that
striking employees have a right to
prosecute their strike by picketing so
long as the picketing is done in a
peaceable and lawful manner, and not
upon the premises of the employer.
This rule puts the employer and
the employe upon an equal footing.
In case of strike the employer has a
right to go out upon the labor mar
can, men to take the place of his
the striking employees have the right
to post a limited number of pickets il
the neighborhood of the plant of the
employer that they may in this man
ner oDserve the progress of the work
at the plant, present their side of the
controversy to the employees taking
their places and thereby persuade
them, If they can, to leave the en-
ployment, to lawfully dissuade others
from entering the employment and
thus further the cause and promote
the interest Of the strikers. The de-
PENDANTS have the right to win their
strike, if they can, by any peaceable
and lawful means at their command
in persuading others to quit and in
preventing their places being taken
and retained by new employees, and
for this purpose they have the right
to peaceably picket the plant of the
plaintiff, and they have the right to
post about the said plant
a reasonable number of men
to act as pickets at such times as
they deem advisable, and in this con-
nection the court would suggest that
half dozen pickets at any one time
would not be an unreasonable num-
Der in this case. In so far as the tenn
porary injunction Is inconsistent with
this proposition Of picketing and pre-
vents the. defendants by peaceable
means inducing others to leave the
employment of plaintiff and to refrain
from entering therein, it will be modi-
fled in accordance with this opinion.
The evidence submitted justifies the
court in finding that some intimidation
of plaintiffs employees and interfer-
ence with plaintiffs business has been
caused by the posting Of an unreason-
able number of pickets, the conduct
and language of some of the pickets
toward the new employees and massing
the pickets about the entrance to
PLAINTIFFS plant SO that employees
would have to go through a double
line of them. SO that in this respect
the picketing was unlawful and upon
that ground the temporary injunction
was properly issued, and to prevent
renetitiOn thereof will he continued
in force.
So that the final conclusion of the
court is as follows:
First-The injunction as to the In
ternational Association of Bridge and
Structural Iron Workers will be dis
solved
Second-The injunction viii be mod
flied so that the defendants will be
permitted to picket the plaintiff'3
plant in a reasonable and lawful man
ner, and to lawfully persuade others
to quit plaintiffs employ or refrain
from taking employment in PLAINTIFFS
shops during the progress of the
strike.
Third-To prevent unlawful picket
ing and intimidation of plaintiffs en-
ployes the injunction will be contin-
ued in force.
Defendants attorney will prepare
an order conforming to this opinion
and after having same approved as to
form by plaintiffs attorneys will sub
NIT same for signature.
Dated at Abba, Iowa, April 20, 1908.
D. M. Anderson.
Judpe