Ottumwa tri-weekly courier., 1908-04-21
PlCkETING is NOT UNLAWFUL
COURT RULES.
Continued from page 1.


progress of the strike or that it was in
any wise responsible for or encourage,
ed the overt acts alleged by plaintiff
TO have been committed. So far as
the record now stands the association
was organized for a lawful purpose
and has been guilty of no unlawful
acts, nor is there any showing that it
mas advised Or intended any unlawful
means in the prosecution of the strike.
The temporary injunction will, there
fore be dissolved in so far as the or
ganization known as the International
Association of Bridge and Structural
Iron Workers is concerned
It Is claimed by the plaintiff, and
conceded by the defendants, that if
the defendants were guilty of any
unlawful act in the prosecution of the
strike by virtue Of which plaintiffs
business was interfered with or its
employees intimidated and coerced into
quitting plaintiffs employ then the
temporary injunction was properly
granted. The PLAINTIFF alleges three
such overt acts resulting in interfer.
ence with its business and intimida-
ton OF its employees resulting in their
quitting its service, and that unless
prevented such acts would continue.
The first of these is an alteration
between ]. c. Steele, an employe, and
J. w. Freed apd Bert Munsell, The
two latter were doubtless pickets and
they met Steele as he was going from
his work. They undertook to talk
with him in reference to his employ.
ment and fight resulted. This took
place at the entrance to plaintiffs
plant. Just who was the aggressor
IS hard to determine, but it is evil
dent that Steele was expecting trou-
Bile as he was apparently armed with
piece of gas pipe. 1t is not neces-
sary for the court to determine who
was In the right nor who in the
wrong in this instance as the ques-
ton Is more or less involved in the
question Of picketing discussed later
on in this opinion. It's sufficient to
say, however, that under all the evi-
dence Steele seemed to be as anxious
as any one for trouble and this alter
cation would be no Justification for a
temporary injunction.
The next question is whether the
Greek laborers brought in from an
other city were caused to leave the
plalntltf's employ by unlawful acts up-
on the part of the defendants. These
parties did not stay long. The plain
Tiff claims that they were caused to
leave upon account of intimidation up-
on the part of the defendants, while
the defendants claim that they came
to the work upon the representation
that 1T was new factory and that
they were to take no others employ
ment and that when they learned that
they We're to take the place of strik-
ers and were expected to sleep and
live in the factory they left on their
own free will. This court is unable to
determine just why they left. Most Of
the evidence offered upon the subject
is hearsay as to the claims of both
parties. There is no sufficient COM
petent evidence to justify a finding
that they were caused to leave on ac-
count of intimidation upon the part of
the defendants, and, therefore, no
cause in this for temporary writ.
The next, and last question present
ed, and the one upon which the parties
differ, not only as to the facts, but
also as to the law, is that upon what
is termed "picketing." Picketing is de-
fined to be the establishment and
maintenance of system Of espionage
over the plant, works and employees
of the employer and it is done by GER
tain members whose duty 1t is to OBJ
serve the progress of the plant under
the new employees and to interview
such employees and induce them TO
quit the employment and to induce all
parties to refrain from entering such
employment during the strike. It is
an established fact in this case that
there has been more or less picketing
about the plaintiffs plant since the
strike was instituted, and this picket.
ing has consisted of few men at
times and at other times of larger
numbers. 1t is claimed by plaintiff that
these pickets would form double
line and compel the new employees
to walk between them while going to
and returning from their work. 1t is
claimed that they would be armed
with clubs, knives, and with brick
bats and stones lying conveniently at
their feet and that they would at such
times threaten the employees with
bodily harm and call them vile and Of
IShSiSe uaHleS, dllu LIaL Cner6Dy they
were intimidated, caused to quit plain
tiff's employment and plaintiffs bust
ness thereby interfered with. The de-
PENDANTS deny these allegations and al
lege that all picketing was done in a
peaceable and lawful manner, and they
claim to have the right to thus picket
the plaintiffs plant. They also claim
that no intimidation was practiced by
them and that none was intended. It
is claimed upon the part of the plain
tiff that all picketing is unlawful and
that defendants should be enioined
from picketing plaintiffs plant in any
manner whatever. This question has
received consideration at the hands of
number of the Federal and State
courts and there is authority both for
and against plaintiffs position. In
Chicago Typothetae VS.. Franklin
Union, ~ N. E. r. 176, it is said that
it is idle to talk Of picketing for law
full purposes and that it is inconsistent
with everything not related to force
and violence, and that all picketing is
unlawful. This doctrine is approved II
Michigan in the case Of Beck VS.. Rail