Evening star., 1932-04-27
Kule Allowing Picketing
A Violation of Rights

To the Editor Of The Star:
A news item in the local press Of the
23d instant stated, among other things,
that the District Commissioners had -e-
quested Marx Lewis, attorney for the
local fur workers union, to draft an
amendment to sections Of the District
sign regulations which have been in
terpreted as preventing picketing, and
that it is expected that the regulations
will be amended so as to permit picket
ing, as 1t was never intended to prevent
it by the regulations as they ar.
To thus legalize picketing is to violate
the most elementary and constitutional
rights Of the citizen. The rights Of life,
liberty and property are fundamental
They are not created by the Constitu-
ton, but are simply recognized therein
and their violation prohibited.
The word liberty" was not used in
the Constitution in any narrow sense
1t embraces all the natural rights of
man, such, for example, as freedom of
locomotion, freedom Of contract with
respect to the ordinary and usual mat
ters Of daily life and intercourse, pri-
vate ownership of property, with security
in the use and enjoyment thereof, and
the right to engage in the pursuit of
all legitimate business and professional
undertakings for pleasure or profit,
without let, hindrance or interference,
except in so far as such pursuits may be
affected by public interest and which
may therefore be subject to govern
mental regulation.
The liberty to engage in legitimate
business, free from coercion, moleStation
or interference by others, is unques-
tionably right recognized in and guar
anteed by the Constitution Of the United
States.
Now. what is the object Of union labor
in picketing ones place of business
whether it be peaceful or with violence?
1t Is to coerce the owner into acceding
to the demands of the parties whom the
picketers represent, and that, too, often
without regard to the practicability or
justice of the demands. Under such cir
cumstances, what becomes of the con-
stitutional liberty of the proprietor. of
his rights of property, and of the free
and untrammeled conduct of his bust
ness?
To sanction or approve Of picketing,
no matter how peaceful, is to make a
hollow mockery OF our constitutional
guarantees, to encourage violence, to
deny the business man the equal pro-
lection of the law" to take his property
without due process of law" and to
strike a fatal blow at the fundamental
rights of the ownership and security of
property, which are the bases of social
order and bulwarks of civilization.
These securities once destroyed, revolu-
ton and anarchy will inevitably follow,
10 the detriment of the laboring man as
well as to all other classes.
Aside from the injury to the person
whose place Of business is picketed, and
the infringement of his most elementary
rights, picketing is also an annoyance to
and an encroachment upon the rights
of the public, who are entitled to
ingress and egress from place of busi-
ness without molestation, and is well
calculated to and often does lead to
violence and the disturbance Of the
peace and good order of the community.
Such q regulation would be unconsti-
tutional, some courts to the contrary
Notwithstanding, and in addition would
be contrary to sound public policy,
and instead of legalizing picketing, 1t
should be prohibited with appropriate
penalties for indulging in it.
ALEXANDER SIDNEY LANIER.