The Cordova daily times., 1922-02-01
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1922
AGGRESSIVE PICKETING BARRED BY
 U. S. COURT

Picketing is legal but there must be no vio- fence or intimidation in connection with it. Where there is, it is the ''duty' of the courts to issue in iunctions
 This, in effect, is the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in decision which promises to have far-reaching influence on future labor troubles. The opinion interprets labor sections of the famous Clayton act and for the first time lays down principles which the court believes should govern legal regula- tions of industrial disputes.
 The court goes out of it's way to declare that labor has a right to organize and a right to strike, and right to ''propagandize," But it tells how these rights should be restricted.
 The case was that of the American Steel Boundaries against the Tri-City Central Trades Council of Illinois, An injunction against picketing was issued in 1914, in lower court on the grounds that the council and individuals preventing non striking workmen from going to the plant Appeals brought the case to tle high tribunal.
 ''It is clear that Congress wished to forbid tie use by the Federal courts of their equity arm tc prevent peaceable persuasion by em- ployes, discharged or eXpectant, in promotion of their side of the dispute, and to secure them against judicial restrain in obtaining or com muncating information in any place where they might lawfully be,' said Chief Justice Taft, in discussing the legal restraints against using the injunction as set forth in the Clay1 ton act
 However. the opinion was expressed that if the methods employed by workers lead to Gin timidation and obstruction.' it is the duty of the courts to limit what the "propa gandists' '' do to prevent law infractions and violations of the rights of the employees and employer.
 "In going to and from work.' the opinion said, linen have right to as free passage without obstruction as the streets afford con- sistent with the ri ghts of others to enjoy the same privilege. We are social people, and the accosting by one of another in an inof- fensive way and an offer by one to communi- cate and discuss information with view to influencing the others are not regarded as an aggression or as a violation of that others rights
 Eff, however, the offer is declined, as it may rightfully be then persistence, importun- ity, following and jogging becomes unjusti- liable annoyance and obseruction which is likely to savor of intimidation From all of this the person sought to be influenced has
 
 right to have him free.' The court said that in the present case three or four groups of picketers, consisting of from four to twelve in group, made up picket line. Assaults and violence resulted
 "All information rendered, all argument ad- vanced, and all persuasion under such circum- stances intimidation said the court "They could not be otherwise. "A restraining order against picketing will advise earnestly advocates of labor's cause that the law does not look with favor on an enforced discussion of the merits of the issue between individuals who wish to work and groups of those who do not, under conditions which subject the individuals who wish to work to a test of their nerve and physical strength and courage'
 Then the court told what it thought would be proper picketing in the existing situation