Evening star., 1925-09-14
WOMAN FINED $40
AS STORE PICKET
Dorothy Ferguson's Case
Dismissal Refused by
Judge SchuIdt.

Judge Gus A. Schuldt, presiding
ma gistrate of the Police Court, today
denied a motion to dismiss the case
against Dorothy Ferguson, charged
with the violation of section Is Of
article % of the police regulations of
the District of Columbia, involving the
picketing of the Young Mems Shop,
1919 F street April 9, 1925, and
ordered a fine of $40 paid or a Jail
sentence of 10 days in default.
In giving his opinion Judge Schuldt
stated that it was the opinion of the
court that no law of the United states
is involved in the case, but simply
municipal regulation directed not
against picketing but against the In
reference with intended customers.
This decision denies that the Clayton
antitrust act is applicable in this case.
The section of the regulations which
the defendant is charged with having
violated reads:
No person shall remain in front of
or enter any store where goods are
sold at retail for the purpose of en-
ticing away or in any manner inter
fering with any person or persons who
may be in front of or who may nave
entered therein for the purpose OF
X.
Evidence Is Brief.
Testimony In the case disclosed that
the defendant on the above date and
subsequently, on another date stood
out in front of the store and kept
constantly repeating in an audible
voice to passersby: This is a non
union store and unfair to organized
labor"
The defense agreed that the evil
dence of the Government was correct
and moved that the court dismiss and
find that the Government had failed
to make out a prima facie case, in as
much as the acts complained of are
held to be legal under Section 20 of
the CLAYTON antitrust act of October
Is, 1914.
The District in rebuttal claimed
that the regulation was valid under
the exercise of the powers of the
Commissioners to protect peace and
prevent disorders, and that the Clay
ton antitrust act had no application.
The defense then claimed that in the
instant case there was no enticement
or interference and that therefore the
Clayton bill was in contrariness with.
Text of Opinion.
In the opinion handed down today
the court said:
1T seems to the court that the only
question before it is the validity OF
the regulations and regrets that 1t Is
necessary that the so-called issues or
picketing must be injected. 1t is true
that the offense of the defendant was
in the nature of picketing. The reg
ulation, however, concerns itself With
the enticement and interference OF
persons who are about to enter any
store for the purpose of buying. The
regulation was not passed with the
purpose of preventing picketing, but
to save merchants and prospective
buyers from annoyance and to pre-
serve the peace of the community.
II picketing in the guise of intimida-
ton, interference and enticement Of
prospective purchasers is pursued the
court cannot perceive why the Of
fender should not come within the
purvfew Of said regulation, because
to hold that 1t only applied to mer-
chants attempting to incite and in
terfere with the customers of others
would place 1t in the category of class
legislation.
Furthermore, the evidence does not
disclose that there was any dispute
between the defendant and the place
where the alleged offense occurred
and 1t would appear that the entire
section is directed against such a
contingency and the issuance of in
functions and restraining orders in
relation thereto