The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1940-03-14
Picket Injunction
Continued From Page One)

says IldC IlllS liluOG UC VIC law 10
clearly indicated in the intolerable and
unexplainable predictment in which
an employer might we'll find himself
if picketed by two or more hostile
Unions, with each one insisting that
the employer discharge his employees
unless they become members of that
particular Union alone"
The majority opinion also points
out that there is no Ohio statute on
the subject and that this distinguishes
the Crosby case from most of the au-
thorities relied upon. (House Bill No.
l6 (Mr. Matthias) an anti-injunction
bill which was offered in the House of
Representatives last year and which
was tabled with the help Of Labor
would not have afforded any protection
in a case Of this kind.) The majority
opinion was concurred in by Chief
Justice Carl V. Weygandt, Judges Ed
ward S. Matthias, Roy H. Williams,
William Hart and George S. Myers.
However, Judge Myers did not go
all the way with the majority in it's
reasoning. He concurred in the judg-
ment because he said he believed the
trial court was justified in enjoining
picketing in this case because there
was proximate connection between
the acts Of the defendants and the vio-
lence charged"
"Rights peaceably exercised will be
protected by the COURTS" said Judge
Myers, "but such protection is for
| feited when the attempted exercise
thereof is accompanied by acts of vio-
lence as in the instant case"
Judge Day, in his dissenting opinion
held that the Court of Appeals decision
which permitted picketing and banner
ing was the only question before the
court for review, and he said: "The
record discloses that there were no
acts of violence following the judg-
ment of that court"
Said Judge Day: Peaceful picket
ing, by carrying placards, signs, dis
tribution of literature or by oral
speech, is not, in and of itself, unlaw-
full, but is lawful right emanating
from and protected by the constitu-
tional provision governing the exer-
else of free speech"
Judge Zimmerman, in his dissenting
opinion, likewise points out that the
acts of violence complained of in this
case occurred prior to the issuance OF
the injunction by the Common Pleas
Court and he said there was "lack of
evidence duplicating any Of the de-
PENDANTS with the same"
Judge Zimmerman declared that
"acts of violence cannot be condoned
or sanctioned" and Irresponsible labor
leaders realize that the pursuit of il
legal methods to bring about what may
be a desirable result is harmful to the
| labor movement as whole, and
arouses public opinion against the
cause of Organized Labor"
However, we are not concerned
with the past. Our primary function
is to determine whether the order of
the Court of Appeals for the future
should remain undistributed. The mere
fact that acts of violence had been
previously committed would Of itself
furnish no justification for enjoining
legal acts of peaceable persuasion"
Judge Zimmerman points to the
past record of Organized Labor and
it's accomplishments in obtaining in
creased wages, shorter hours, better
working conditions and higher stand
ard of living for the working people.
'The struggle has been long and ar
| I,,,,C ,pl bn ,nnol or nf
labor organizations as effective bodies
is dependent upon progress Judge
Zimmerman states.
"While, of course, no employer can
be compelled to hire union workmen,
and no workman can be forced to join
a Labor Union, Org ganized Labor
should have the privilege in a reason
able, peaceable and orderly way of
advising the public, if it so desires,
and for what it may be worth, of the
truth concerning an employer of La
Dor, especially where the practices fol-
lowed and the policies pursued by such
employer are opposed to the interests
of Union Labor and are considered
deleterious to employees generally, or
to employees engaged in a particular
kind Of work"
Judge Zimmerman, in his opinion,
expresses the view that the term "la-
Dor dispute" or "trade dispute" has
a much broader meaning than the one
given it by the majority opinion when
it held that there was no trade dis
pute involved in this case. He cited
numerous court decisions sustaining
his position.
State Representative Martin +.
Blum and Leonard j. Stern represent
ed the Local Unions in the case.
Judges Hamilton, Ross and Matthews,
of the First Appellate District of Gin
cinnati, sitting by designation of the
Eighth Appellate District, heard the
case and upheld the right to picket.
1t is their decision which the Supreme
Court has reversed. The decision up
holds the decision of Judge Frank j.
Lausche, of the Cuyahoga-co. Common
Pleas Court, who granted the in