The Connecticut labor press. (New Haven, Conn.) 191?-1921, 1920-10-23
WORKERS RIGHT
TO PICKET IS
AGAIN UPHELD
Oregon State Supreme Court Up
holds Anti Injunction Law in
Important Decision.
PEACEFUL PICKETING
Decision of Lower Court Against
It Is Set Aside by This
Ruling.

Portland, Ore, Oct. .22.-The state
supreme court has upheld the Oregon
anti-inj JUNCTION law and has set aside a
court decision that there is no such
thing as peaceful picketing. The court
also rejects a favorite claim or anti
unionists by holding that a strike or
lockout does not terminate relations
between employer and employe. Re1a-
tons between these parties, says the
lscourt, are not the same as between an
employer and a stranger seekinc en-
p1oyment
This decision was made in the case
of the Portland Retail Clerks union,
whose members were rnjoined by a
local court from picketing. The SUI
preme court ruled that the clerks have
right to notify trade unionists and
their friends that the firm is unfair to
organized labor.
The court took the same position in
the case of striking jewelry workers
who were enjoined by a local court, but
added that picketing can not be maint
tanned to secure the union shop.
Justices Bennett and Bean dissented
from the curious contradiction that ad-
mits the right to say firm is unfair to
organized labor, but denies the right to
advertise opponents of collective bar
gaining.
In his dissenting opinion Justice
Bennett called attention. to this incon-
| sistency and presented series of ur-
answerable arguments based on morals
and Fundamental law.
81 can see absolutely no reason said
| this jurist why the members of a labor
union, or the union as body, have
not the same right, for the same pur
pose, to peaceably and quietly persuade
| their friends and syrnpathizers, and
| such others as will listen to them, to
patronize exclusively firms and business
establishments which are friendly to
their cause, and who are willing to deal
| with them as body-to recognize the
principle of collective bargaining, and
| to refuse to patronize such firms as are
| unfriend1y to labor or to any of the
| principles for which their organization
is contending.
'A1l of us practice similar right
! every day of our ordinary lives. II
4 one of us buys a suit of clothes from
| a tailor and thinks he treats him un-
| fairly in any way, he tells his friends
| about it, and advises them and per-
suades them, if he can, to go to some
other tailor to buy their clothes.
| why should we deny to labor people
| the same right to advise with and per-
suade their friends that we, ourselves
are constantly exercising?
| mo doubt there is an element of
moral coercion Gin picketing), and one
| of the purposes (but by no means all or
the only purposes, upon the part of the
| labor union is to compel the employer
| to do something which they think he
| ought to do, but which he would not do
| otherwise.
| "But it must be remembered and kept
| in mind that all moral coercion is not
| wrongful or unlawful. .
eff we refuse to buy sugar Gas the
| fruit preservers have lately done) or
dress in cheap garments for the pur-
| pose of lowering prices, IN either case
4 our purpose is coerc1ve IN exactly the
| same sense-to compel the dealer to sell
| at a lower price than he wishes to sell.
| "In this case Mr.. Heitkempter Gone
| of the jewelry merchants) was clearly
| using the same kind OF coercion when
he refused to treat with his employees,
because, as he says in his testimony, l
! didn't think our watchmakers would go
| out, to tell the truth. None of them
| were in a position to be idle. He was
| taking advantage of their necessities to
| compel them to work under conditions
| dictated by him-under conditions
which they did not deem fair and which
| they did not want to accept.
! 1T would be idle and foolish cat
I and mouse proposition-and make
plaything of the rights of laboring men,
to say that they may do thing for the
! purpose of winning better conditions
| for themselves, with perfect right and
| lawfulness as long as they are too
weak to win their cause, or to effect
their purpose; but as soon as they are
| combined in such way and with suf-
fcient strength to have chance to
win-suhfcient strength to be likely to
cause the employer to yield, and give
| them better conditions asked for, it
Immediately becomes unlawful. 1t seems
to me entirely clear that if they have
| the right as individuals to institute a
| boycott against their employers and per-
suade others to quit his patronage for
the purpose of bringing moral pres
sure to bear upon him, to give them
better conditions and to recognize their
| union or to consetn to collective bar
gaining (Which means, the same thing)
| then they have right to resort to every
| peaceful influence that is within their
| power, and to every available possible
1 means which does not involve any act
otherwise unlawful"