The potters herald. [volume] (East Liverpool, Ohio) 1899-1982, 1941-02-20
Two Decisions
CONTINUED from Page One)

ployer's place of business. Entangle
ment with violence was expressly out
of those cases. The status had to be
dealt with on their face and there
fore we stuck them, down. We
would not strike down statute
which authorized courts of Illinois to
prohibit picketing when they should
find that violence had given, to the
,picketing a coercive effect whereby
it would operate destructively as force
and intimidation. Such a situation is
presented by this record"
This majority decision upholding
the Illinois ban on picketing brought
forth dissenting opinions from JUS.
tees Black and Douglas in combina-'
tion and Justice Reed individually.
While not denying the right of the
Illinois court to enjoin violence, JUS
tice Black said that the injunction in
dispute clearly invalidated the right
of free speech guaranteed by the Fed
eral Constitution.
"This injunction, like a criminal
statute, prohibits conduct under fear
of punishment" he said. "There is
every reason why we should look at
the injunction as we would a statute,
and if upon it's face it abridges the
constitutional guarantees of freedom
of expression, it should be stricken
down. The injunction, like a statute,
stands as an overhauling threat of
f,,f,,ro picb, Tho 1ouy nf Ill
nois has been declared by it's high
est court in such manner as to in
fringe upon constitutional guarantees.
And by this injunction that law as
actually applied abridges freedom of
expression.
"For this language is capable of
being construed to mean that none of
those enjoined can, without subjectinf
themselves to summary punishment,
speak, write or publish anything any
| where or at any time which the Hi
nois contracting without a jury in
the exercise of it's broad power to
punish for contempt-might conclude
would result in discouraging people
from buying milk products of the
complaining dairy. And more than
that-if the language is so construed,
those enjoined can be sent to Jail if
they even threaten to write, speak or
publish in such way as to discourage
prospective milk purchasers.
"But the injunction approved here
does not stop at closing the mouths
of the members of the petitioning
union. 1t brings within it's ALIEN
bracing sweep the spoken or written
words of any other person "who may
f Il or hereafter agree or ar
range with them " # s." SO, if news
paper should "agree or arrange" with
all or some of those here enjoined
to publish their side of the contro-
versy, thereby necessarily tending to
discourage" the sale of cut-rate milk,
the publishers might likewise be sub
jcct to punishment for contempt. "
at is on the basis of my study of
cIusion that the forfeiture Of the
right to free speech effected by the
| injunction is not warranted.
an reaching this conclusion, | fully
recognize that the union members
guilty of violence were subject to
punishment in accordance with the
principle of due process Of law. And
some Of them have in fact been pros
ccuted and convicted.
"PuniShmont of laWless conduct is
in accord with the necessities of gov
crnment and is essential to the peace
and tranquility of society. But it is
| going a long way to say that because
of the acts of these few men, 5000
other members Of their union can be
denied the right to express their opin-
ion by the sweeping injunction here
approved.
1llinois, like all the other States
of the Union, is part Of a national
| democratic system ON the continued
existence Of which depends the right
Of free discussion of public affairs
a right whose denial to some leads in
| the direction of its eventual denial to
| all am of opinion that the courts
injunction strikes directly at the
heart of our government, and that
| deprivation of these essential liber-
ties cannot be reconcilcd with the
rights guaranteed to the people Of
| this nation by their Constitution"