The Butler County press. [volume] (Hamilton, Ohio) 1900-1946, 1920-11-05

Portland, Ore.-Ine SIaIe supreme
court has upheld the Oregon anti-in-
junction law and has set aside court
decision that there is no such thing as
peaceful picketing. The court also re-
iects favorite claim of anti-unionists
by holding that a strike or lockout
does terminate relations between EN-
ployer and employe. Relations be
tween these parties, says the court,
are not the same as between an em-
ployer and a stranger seeking employ
ment.
This decision was made in the case
of the Portland Retail Clerks Union,
whose members were enjoined by To-
cal court from picketing. The su-
preme court ruled that the clerks
have right to notify trade unionists
and their friends that the firm is un-
fair to organized labor.
The court took the same position
in the case of striking Jewelry work
ers who were enjoined by local court,
but added that picketing cam OF be
maintained to secure the union shop
Justices Bennett and Bean dissented
from the curious contradiction that
admits the right to say firm is un-
fair to organized labor, but denies
the right to advertise opponents Of
collective bargaining.
In his dissenting opinion Justice
Bennett called attention to this incon-
sistency and presented series of un-
answerable arguments based on mo-
rails and fundamental law.
81 can see absolutely no reason,
said this jurist, "why the members OF
labor union, or the union as a body
have not the same right, for the same
purpose, to peaceably and quietly per.
suade their friends and sympathizers
and such others as viii listen to them
to patronize exclusively firms and bus
mess establishments which are friend
" to their cause, and who are willing
to deal with them as a body-to rec
ognize the principle of collective bar
gaining, and to refuse to patroniz'
such firms as are unfriendly to labo-
or to any Of the principles for which
their organization is contending.
"All of us practice a similar right
every day of our ordinary lives. /
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 peo
pie the same right to advise with anc
persuade their friends that we, our
selves, are constantly exercising
mo doubt there is an element O.
moral coercion lin picketing), and one
of the purposes (but by no means al
or the only purpose), upon the par
of the labor union is to compel tht
employer to do something which they
think he ought to do, but which ht
would not do otherwise.
But it must be remembered anC
kept in mind that all moral coercion
Is not wrongful or unlawful
IF we refuse to buy sugar (as th'
fruit preservers have lately done) o.
dress in cheap garments for the pur
our purpose is coercive in exactly tht
pose of lowering prices, in either case
same sense-to compel the dealer t
sell at lower price than he wishes
to sell
In this case Mr. Heitkempter (on'
Of the jewelry merchants) was clearl!
using the same kind of coercion whel
he refused to treat with his employees
because, as he says in his testimony
4 didn't think our matchmaker
would go out, to tell the truth. Nom
of them were in position to be idle,
He was taking advantage of their ne
cessities to compel them to work unde
conditions dictated by him-unde
conditions which they did not deen
fair and which they did not want I,
accept.
1T would be idle and foolish-a ca
and mouse proposition-and make
plaything Of the rights of laborint
men, to say that they may do thin(
for the purpose of winning better con
ditions for themselves, with perfec
right and lawfulness as long as the!
are too weak to win their cause, or t.
effect their purpose; but, as soon a
they are combined in such way anc