Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1918-07-02
UNION P|CkET|NG
 UNLAWFUL, SAYS
 SUPREME COURT
Arkansas Tribunal Upholds Decision Against Little
 Rock Walters
SAYS TT IS USED
 FOR INTIMIDATION
Judge Smith Writes Decision, Con- cured in by Wood and McCuI- lOcll, But Hart and Hum-
 phreys Dissent.

Little Rock. July 1---That picket ing in strikes was once regarded somewhat in the light of free speech, that the law upon tue subject is in formulativc condition, with con- paratively few cases, but that such picketing as was maintained iby Lo- cal Union No. 313, Hotel and Restau- rant Employes. last fall in Little Rock went further than was permissible for purposes of publicity and persuasion and as such was an unlawful interfer- ence with the business of the restau- rant men, was the gist of ;.n opinion handed down Monday morning by Justice Frank Smith of the state SUI preme court in affirming the injunc- tion granted Joe Stahakis by Chan cellor Martineau against the union.
 Justice Wood and Chief Justice Me- Culloch concurred in the opinion, Justice Hart and Humphreys dissent ing.
 Evidence Is Reviewed.
 After reviewing the main points in Chancellor Martineau's decision, Jus tice Smith devoted several pages of his opinion to an examination of the evidence. Justice Smith said that if appellee's witnesses are to be believ- ed the pickets must be held responsi- ble for numerous acts of coercion and intimidation and that if such pick cts were the agents of the union, the union was responsible for their acts, even tho as an organization it might disapprove of their conduct of the strike.
 Justice Smiths decision in part follows:
 "Picketing as an aid to industrial strikes is somewhat of an innova- tion in the economic life Gf the na- tion, and the law on the subject is in the formative period. It is a ques- tion of first impression in this state and, a number of other states like this one, have no cases on the subject. Cases from other courts, state and federal. are not always in harmony.
 Like Right of Free Speech.
 "Early cases upholding the right of picketing likened that acticn to the the exercise of the right of free speech. This was upon the theory that as a striker might tell an individual citl- zen his grievance and thereby appeal to him for support of his strike. SO he might employ any lawful and proper means which gave the greatest effect to that right; and that he might therefore inscribe his griev- ances upon placards to be seen at a distance and to be read by many at the same time. provided the inscrip tion was not libelous or otherwise un- lawful But it appears in the his- tory of this movement as reflected in the opinions of the courts on the subject, that there has been an ex- tension of the rights, claimed by the labor unions in this respect; and the differences which appear in the de cisions of the courts largely arise ouk of contharity bf the view as to when the assertion of this rights by the labor union to give notice of it's grievance becomes an infringement on the right of others bv coercing those into compliance with the de- mands of organized labor-for. as has been stated. the cases all agree in holding that any conduct on the part of pfckets which amounts to coercion is unlawful and will be enjoined.
 Object of Picketfng.
 "But as the caeies continued to come before the courts and the law to be moulded. became more and more apparent that picketins was re- sorted to not alone for persuasion but for coercion and intimidation as we'll"