The Bemidji daily pioneer. [volume] (Bemidji, Minn.) 1904-1971, 1920-06-09
JUDGE STANTON DENIES
MOTION OF THE UNION
lcont,nued from Page One. }

Continued from rage Ohe.'
leading to the company's premises
constituted, as a 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 whlle
many people had been mlsleaa anu
mis-advised as to the right OF picket
ing. Mr., Mcdonald urged that II the
nicketing was done with intent to IN
iure and with full disregard OF the
rights of employees or employers, II
was a violation Of law. In support
of this propositions he cited the court
to the recent case DECIDED IN the
District Court, Hennepin county,
June End, the opinion was handed
down by Judge Fish, In TINS case
Judge Fish issued a permanent 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
citing the Charles T. r. Vanstrum
market, 249 Marquette avenue, Min
neapolis.
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 violation of law. Cases
were also cited in the support that
Ypio a l..
bers are liable for acts OF p1ckets A
case recently decided in the Supreme
Court Of the State of Michigan holds
that equity may prohibit the picket
ing of the premises Of an employer
against whom a strike has been de-
clared and those who picket under
the IMPRESSION that the court has no
jurisdiction over such are guilty OF
contempt.
The Supreme Court Of Illinois has
held 1T is idle to talk of picketing
for lawful purposes. Men do not
form picket lines for the purpose OF
conversational and lawful persuasion
In Imagination and theory a
peaceable picket line may be possible,
but in fact a picket line is never
peaceable. 1t is always a formation
of actual warfare and quite inconsis-
tent with everything not related to
force and violence. Its used is q
form of unlawful coercion"
Mr.. McGrath cOntended that they
had the right to picket the premises
of the Crookston Lumber company,
provided they did 50 in 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. 1875. The
court decided to modify the form of
order heretofore issued restraining
the defendants and made an order ::
restraining the defendants from by
means Of any Unlawful act, interior.
ing with tho plaintiff in the operation
Of it. saw mill Or the conduct Of its
business; or interfering with or mo-
Lasting employees Of said plaintiff by
acts or words of intimidation or
coercion or BY means Of threats; OF
by any other than peaceful and lawful
means endeavoring to induce the en-
ployees Of the plaintiff (Crookston
Lumber company to abstain from
working for the plaintiff"
The hearing on the motion for 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-
cerned 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.