The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1920-06-09
JUDGE STANTON DENIES
MOTION OF THE UNION
lfcont,nnad from Page one. J

IL
leading to the company's premises
constituted, as q matter of law, acts
Of intimidation and Interference
That these citizens desiring TO 60
to and from their place OF employ
\ ment were entitled to protection
at the hands of municipal authority
from this unlawful assemblage ana
relief from their conduct. That wh1le
{ MANY people had been mislead ana
: mis-adyised as to the right OF picket
ing. Mr.. Mcdonald urged that II the
nicketing was done with intent to IN
lure and with full disregard OF the
rights of employees or employers, IL
vas a violation ot law In support
Of this propositionfhe cited the court
Il the recent case decided In the
District Court, Hennepin county,
lime End, the opinion was handed
down BY Judge Fish In ting case
Judge Fish issued aspermanent in
junction restraining the Amalgamat-
ed Butchers and Meat Cutters, work
men of North America and officers
and members of seven other Mime
apolis labor organizations from pick
atinx the Charles r. d. Vanstrum
market, 249 Marquette avenue, Min
neapolis. So =.
Many cases were cited in support
of the proposition "A moral and nat
ural intimidation, that works on the
minds or would move an ordinary
man against his will is sufficient to
constitute a violation Of law. Cases
were also cited in the support that
the defendant Union and all its mem
bers are liable for acts of pickets. A
case recently decided in the Supreme
Court Of the State Of Michigan h0lds
that equity may prohibit the picket
ing of tho premises OF an employer
against whom a strike has been de-
clared and those who picket under
the impression that the court has nc
jurisdiction over such are guilty Of
contempt.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois haa
held 1T is idle to talk of picketine
for lawful purposes. Men do not
form picket lines for the purpose Of
conversational and lawful persuasion
In Imagination and theory q
peaceable picket line may be possible
but in fact q picket line il never
peaceable. It is always q formation
Of actual warfare and quite inconsis
tent with everything not related tt
force and violence. Its used is {
form of unlawful coercion"
Mr.. McGrath c0ntended that they
had the right TO- picket the premises
of the Crookston Lumber company
provided they did so in a peaceful
and lawful manner.
The defendants motion to vacate
the restraining order was denied as
was also the motion to dismiss the
restraining order as to the Timber
workers Local Union No. 1876. The
court decided to modify the form OF
order heretofore issued restraining
the defendants and made an order
Restraining The defendants from b
4sass Of any ualewful act, interior
ine with the plaihi;6 IN The operation
IF it, saw mill u III eenauet Of it,
business; Or iutsrfs rins with or mo
lestins employees Of said plaintiff By
acts or words Of intimidation o.
coercion or b, means of threats; Q,
By any other than psacsful and lawful
means sndsavorins g induce the en-
ploysss Of the plaintiG (crookston
Lumber company 70 abstain from
working for tie plaintiff"
The hearing on the motion Tor a
temporary Injunction was continued
until the 9Th day Of July, 1920, and
this restraining order as modified re-
mains in force and effect.
Judge Stanton, in language that
could not be misunderstood, announc-
ed that so far as the court was con-
eerned nothing would be permitted to
be done that was unlawful or illegal.
That he had in mind the interests of
the strikers as we'll as the interests of
men now employed by the Crookston
Lumber company.
>, - T.,