The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1919-04-25
P|CKET|NG UPHELD
BY AN OHIO JUDGE
Cooks and Walters Local No,
sos Wins a Legal
Battle

| news prlnJS the following declS-
ion handed down by Judge Kin
kead of Columbus:
Court of Common Pleas, Franklin
County, Ohio.
Hop Lee Chan ct al, plaintiffs, VS..
Walters and Cooks Union ct al,
defendants.
Kinkead, j.
This matter is submitted upon a
motion for modification of a re-
straining order heretofore allowed
by Judge Rogers.
There is no need of extended dis
cussion or consideration of the
question of the right to strike or of
the right to conduct proper
picket. Counsel for plaintiff in his
argument commented upon the di-
versity of judicial expression con-
corning the subject of picketing,
etc; the relative rights of capital
and labor are now clearly defined.
The contest between capital and
labor, that is between the one who
furnishes the capital which carries
on the enterprise or business, and
those who by their labor contribute
an equally essential part of the
common or mutual undertaking has
long been bone of bitter conten-
ton. Capital without labor, or la
Dor without capital can accomplish
nothing; hence neither can get
along without mutually of right
and just consideration. Mutually
of right forbids unjust or unequal
advantage resulting in injustice or
injury to the other.
When conflict arises between the
interest of the parties engaged in
the common enterprise which finds
it's way in court of justice, the
tribunal called upon to adjust the
difficulty, must express its judg-
ment with due regards to the rights
of both sides.
1t is a recognized principle of law
that men engaged in the service Of
another may quit work by concert
in action by what is designated as
strike. 1t is conceded that or
ganized labor may engage in what
is designated as picketing; that is
by concerted action it may use
moral persuasion to prevent others
from taking their place. There can
be no intimidation or force or dis
order in such picketing. There can
be no general conspiracy to ruin the
business of the employer by boy
colt.
These defendants have no right
by conspiracy to ruin the business
of plaintiffs by unlawful boycott.
The court can not grant defend
ants affirmative relief upon this
motion; it can only prescribe the
limits of the relative rights of each.
The syllabus in Garment Co. VS..
Garment Workers Union, Is N. P.
n. S. S. 353, clearly expresses the
proper legal conception, viz:
THE stationing of 'pickets'
near the premises of the en-
ployer is permissible so long as
it is done for the mere purpose
of observing what is going on,
and obtaining such informa-
ton as strikers are entitled to,
or for the purpose of endeavor-
ing to persuade, by orderly and
peaceful methods, those who
are willing to listen; but the
keeping of patrols in front OF
or about the premises of the
employer, accompanied by dis
order or violence, or any man.
ner of coercion or intimida-
ton, to prevent others from
entering into or remaining in
his service, or the approaching
of those who do not de-
sire to confer with them, is I'M
lawful and if the purpose is to
procure workmen to break con-
tracts of employment, it will
not be lawful even though con-
Quoted in a peaceable manner"
They can not circulate the cards;
thew can talk to those who are will
ing to listen, provided it is not pur-
suant to a conspiracy they may
maintain a proper and reasonable
picket, so long as it is not accom-
panied by disorder or violence, and
so long as it does not in any man
rer coerce or intimidate; they may
use peaceful, orderly persuasion
provided it is not pursuant to con-
certed plan.
The order may be modified in ac-
cordance with this opinion.