HAYOOD'S VIEW

I, W. W. Leader Calls Ford Plan Insurance

Against Agilation

William D. Haywood, one of the big leaders of the Independent Workers of the World, is quoted in The Masses as follows:

"The plan adopted by Henry Ford, millionaire and manufacturer, is the most effective way of stopping the work of the agitator. Other manufacturers have tried to bring about the same result by more brutal meansvillification, injunction and jail. Mr. Ford's methods will accomplish, temporarily, at least, what torture has been unable to accomplish. His act has not been so much philanthropy as insurance. While he may really be suffering from enlargement of the heart, he also desires industrial peace.

"His phenomenal raise of wages with corresponding reduction of hours, assures him that his employes will be the best material in the ranks of labor, fit and efficient. In the long run his experiment will pay. Of course this is conjectural, and can only be proven. by the coming years' increase of dividends. But the one feature that is of vital importance to us is not conjectural. It is the influence that Mr. Ford's action will have throughout the industrial world. He has established a right for which the I. W. W. has long contended, the right of the unskilled to enjoy the same standard of living as the most skilled.

"And whatever may have been the incentive, he has pointed the way that other capitalists must follow. They can no longer show up their volumes of watered stock and claim that it is impossible to raise wages and reduce hours. There is but little difference in the profits of various successful industries. What Mr. Ford's industry has been making is about what other flourishing industries have been making. And if his small capitalization is what has enabled him to adopt this plan, then the manufacturers with a large capitalization will simply have squeeze the water out of their stock and do it too."

to

Temperance

The Illinois State Hospitals Association, at its annual meeting, adopted a resolution in which occurs the following passage:

"There is no objection to teaching the young to respect the sexes, the boy to hold in reverence the woman and to defend the girl in the next chair in the schoolroom. We all complain of the double standard of morals. Where is a better place to arouse protest against its injustices and wrongs than in the youthful mind? We can teach without offense that the great minds have been the clean minds, that the great lives have been the clean lives; that temperance in all things is a cardinal virtue, that manliness does not depend upon a certain degree of indulgence in vices."

"Temperance in all things!" exclaims The Brewers' Review. "That is appeared in these columns for the last the keynote of the articles that have ten years. It is just as applicable to the drink question as to sex relation or, in fact, anything else in the world. Temperance is not only a cardinal virtue, but may, without much of a stretch, be called the only virtue."

Good Citizenship!

The United Mine Workers of Illinois, in its annual convention at Peoria, Ill., says The Miners' Magazine. adopted a resolution instructing all local unions not to receive into membership anyone who is a member of the state militia, and to expel any members of the national guard who hold cards in the Illinois Mine Workers.

Down in Georgia a negro, who had his life insured for several hundred dollars, died and left the money to his widow. She immediately bought herself a very elaborate mourning outfit.

"Them sho is fine cloes," remarked a friend to whom she was showing them, "but, befo' heaven, what is you goin' to do wid all dis black underwear?"

The bereaved one sighed: "Chile, when I mourns I mourns."-Harper's Magazine.

Court Decisions

Affecting Labor

THE MICHIGAN STRIKE Proceedings in State Supreme Court to Com

pel Issue of Injunction

On the 20th of September, 1913, a bill of complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the strike district by the Baltic Mining Company, the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company, and sixteen others against the Western Federation of Miners, District Union No. 16, and other district unions, President Charles H. Moyer and other officers, and every person affiliated with the Western Federation of Miners, praying for a writ of injunction to prevent intimidation, violence, assaults, picketing, etc. A writ was issued the same day enjoining the defendants

from

"In any manner interfering with, molesting, or disturbing any person or persons now in the employ of said complainants above mentioned, or any of them, and from in any manner interfering with, molesting, or disturbing any person or persons who may desire to enter the employment of the said complainants or any of them, by way of threats, personal violence, intimidation, or by any means whatsoever, calculated or intended to prevent against their will, such persons or any of them from entering or continuing in the employment of said complainants, or any of them, or calculated or intended to induce, against their will, any employes of said complainants, or any of them, to leave the employment of said complainants, or any of them, or to desist or refrain from working for said complainants, or any of them, either temporarily or permanently.

"From picketing in or about or in the vicinity of the mines, works, properties, or premises or any thereof of the said complainants, or any of them, or on or near the highways or ways used by the employes of said ing to and from their work, or at or complainants, or any of them, in passnear or in the locality of the homes or residences of the said employes, or interfering with the free access of the any of them. From in any manner employes of said complainants, or any of them, from their homes to the premises of said complainants, or any of them, and the free return of said employes to their homes.

"From gathering and parading in large numbers, or in any numbers, at or in the vicinity of the premises of said complainants, or any of them, or on the highways or other ways along and over which the employes of said complainants, or complainants, or any of them, pass to or from their work, or about or in the vicinity of the localities of the homes or residences of the said employes, or any of them, during the morning or evening hours, when the employes of said complainants, or any of them, are going to or returning from their work.

"From impeding, obstructing, molesting or disturbing the employes of the said complainants, or any of them, by threats, violence, insults, gatherings, parades, or any form of intimidation whatsoever, or by any acts of any kind calculated or intended as or for intimidation of the said employes, or any of them. From doing any other act or thing whatsover in furtherance of any combination or conspiracy to cause the employes of complain

ants, or any of them, or any other person, against their will, to desist or refrain from working in the employment of the said complainants, or any of them."

Later the same day the defendants appeared by their attorneys and moved that the injunction be dissolved for reasons based largely, not on its merits, but on the alleged insufficiency of the bill of complaint. On the 29th of the same month the motion was sus

tained by Justice O'Brien. On the 4th of October a second application for injunction, alleging various acts of violence, assault, intimidation, etc., since the date of the first application, was made by complainants and refused. A few days afterward a petition was presented to the Supreme Court of the state by the complainant companies praying that defendants and Justice O'Brien be required to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue against Justice O'Brien directing him to issue the injunction as prayed, also asking that the Supreme Court itself issue an injunction pending the hearing on the order to show cause. On the 8th of October the order to show cause was issued with a further order to the effect that in the meanwhile the writ of injunction dissolved by Justice O'Brien on the 29th of September be revived and continue

in force until the determination of the matter involved in the rule to show cause, or the further order of the court.

In the opinion, the Supreme Court recites the proceedings had in the Circuit Court before Justice O'Brien, and, in brief, the allegations of the bill of complaint and then continues:

and children, too numerous to attempt to repeat here, fully substantiating and showing continuation of the unlawful conduct by defendants alleged in complainants' bill. The affidavits testify positively from personal experience and observation. The affidavits are made, not only by employes of complainants and their families, but by others-officials and private citizens-in many walks of life.

"They tell of the strikers, members of the defendant Federation and their sympathizers, parading with noise and insults and threats; attacking, assaulting and driving back peaceful workmen going to their employment; of men irregularly grouped together in bands of from ten to a dozen to mobs of 600 and 700 at various times, both day and night, with threatening demonstrations and words, lying in wait for and attacking employes of complainants as they went to and from their work, assaulting them with clubs and rocks, snatching from them their dinner pails and trampling them upon the streets, applying to them vile and vulgar epithets, threatening violence not only to themselves but to their families to kill, to dynamite and to blow up their houses.

"They tell of peaceable citizens of long residence in those communities.

with their established homes and families there, and whose only offense was an attempt to continue work where and as they had been employed for many years, being assaulted on the highways, mobbed, their clothing torn from them, spit upon, coal ashes and slops thrown on them, bottles and rocks hurled at them, often inflicting serious injuries, even in sight of their wives watching from their homes; of boarding houses and homes of nonunion men being surrounded and stoned; of women and girls struck with missles and injured on such occasions; of mobbing trains, defying the civil authorities, resisting and assaulting officers; of resort to firearms. in which employes of complainants and others were wounded, and other overt acts of lawlessness, disorder and violence clearly substantiating the allegations in complainants' bill and fair

ly indicating concerted action on the part of defendants to promote their strike by an aggressive policy of force and intimidation."

The concluding part of the opinion reads:

"The power and duty of courts of equity to restrain, on proper application, conspiring labor organizations and their members, as well as others in the conspiracy, from molesting by violence, threats and intimidation, or other unlawful interference with those engaged in any lawful employment and those employing them is too well established and too thoroughly reviewed by our own authorities to call for citations from other states or discussions here. (Beck vs. Teamsters' Union, 118 Mich., 497; United States Heater Co. vs. Molders' Union, 129 Mich., 354; Ideal Manufacturing Co. vs. Ludwig, 149 Mich., 133; ibid. 699; Foundry Co. vs. Iron Molders' Union, 149 Mich., 31; Escanaba Manufacturing Co. vs. Labor Council, 160 Mich., 656; Baldwin vs. Liquor Dealers' Association, 165 Mich., 98; Ideal Manufacturing Co. vs. Wayne Circuit Judge, 139 Mich., 92.)

"In the latter case, as in this, the respondent failed to exercise the discretion which the law required of him under the circumstances and declined to issue an injunction, through an apparent misconception of the law and this court directed a mandamus requiring him to issue a restraining order. We are constrained to hold that the writ prayed for must issue herein, directing respondent to vacate his order setting aside and dissolving the temporary injunction theretofore. granted by him and continue the same as indicated in the order to show cause issued by this court, until final hearing of said injunction suit, or until changed conditions shown to the court render the same no longer necessary.

"On the oral argument of this application learned counsel for the Quincy Mining Co. said: 'The backbone of the strike was about broken when this court modified the former injunction, and the strikers have taken occasion to take a different meaning to it in its present form than perhaps the court meant meant in modifying its

terms.' We find no difficulty in reconciling this statement with the conditions existing at the time referred to, as represented to us by the verified emergency application and accompanying affidavits presented by relators. At that time there was no injunction in force from any court, and it was represented that the strike had gathered such strength, developed in magnitude, and sprung into such lawless activity. that the property of complainants. and the lives of their employes were in imminent jeopardy, demanding immediate action, without time for notice, to save them from irreparable injury.

"We advert to this only because of the alleged misunderstanding as to our order and the fact that counsel has filed a brief along these lines. This court, as such, is not concerned with strikes or their continuance, as such. Courts do not grant injunctions to restrain strikes lawfully conducted. They are only concerned with them when lawlessness and acts of violence and intimidation develop from them.

"To avoid any misapprehension, let it be understood, and, if necessary, further provided, that parades directed to and loitering at and around the premises of complainants, or the homes of their employes, and so timed and conducted as to meet and obstruct such employes going to and from their work during morning and evening changes of shift, and any and all meeting and parading accompanied by acts of violence, threats, insults, or hostile demonstrations toward complainants or their employes, either by act or word, are in no sense 'peaceable meetings and parading', but directly the contrary, and all such conduct must be regarded as strictly within that provision of the injunction prohibiting defendants 'from impeding, obstructing, molesting, or disturbing the employes of the said complainants, or any of them, by threats, violence, insults, gatherings, parades, or any form of intimidation whatsoever, or by any acts of any kind calculated or intended as or for intimidation of the said employes or any of them.'

"Let a writ of mandamus be issued as above indicated."

PICKETING UNLAWFUL There is No Such Thing as Peaceful Pickcling Court Holds

The Michigan Supreme Court recently rendered a decision on the subject of picketing in labor strikes that is of considerable importance. In this decision, made in contempt proceedings officially entitled "In the Matter of Harry Langell", the court for the first time defines picketing and holds that there can be no such thing as peaceable picketing-that consequently all picketing is illegal.

The question arose in a case growing out of a strike which occurred at the plant of the Seager Engine Works, in Lansing, in May, 1912. It was charged that certain strikers were picketing the employer's premises for the purpose of intimidating and interfering with the employes at work there. An injunction was obtained from the Circuit Court, restraining the persons mentioned from certain acts, including "picketing said premises or the approaches thereto". It appeared in evidence that, after this injunction had been served on him, "the petitioner, who resided about two miles from the complainant's premises, at 5:30 in the morning, stationed himself in the highway directly opposite to one of the entrances to complainant's premises and remained there while its employes were passing and crossing the street to enter complainant's premises to go to work."

Proceedings were instituted to punish petitioner for violation of the injunction, and the Circuit Court found him guilty of contempt of court. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court on two grounds: That the court had no power to issue an injunction against picketing, and that, if it had such power, the acts in question did not constitute picketing within the meaning of the law. The Supreme Court disposed of the first contention by saying:

"This court has held that a circuit court in chancery has jurisdiction to issue an injunction restraining inrestraining interference by labor organizations and the members of the same during a strike, with the rights of an employer

by picketing his premises. Beck vs. Teamsters' Protective Union, 118 Mich., 487; Ideal Mfg. Co. vs. Wayne Circuit Judge, 139 Mich., 92. The first contention, therefore, requires no further consideration."

The court then proceeds as follows: "The principal dispute in the case is as to whether there was any evidence tending to show that petitioner wilfully and knowingly disobeyed and violated the terms of the restraining order, and to support the finding of the court that the acts and conduct of petitioner, as disclosed by the evidence, constituted picketing and was a wilful violation of the order in question.

"From our examination of all the evidence in the record we are satisfied that there was evidence in the case tending to support the finding of the Circuit Judge. The testimony of petitioner shows that he was a person having some authority in the molders' union; that he understood that the restraining order prohibited picketing and that in his opinion the court had no authority to issue such an order, and that if anyone went there, without saying anything to the employes or making any disturbance, it would not be punishable. It is clear, from his testimony, that he went there because he thought that he could do it with more discretion than the ordinary members; that he went there wilfully and in defiance of the order, under the impression that a silent picketing was not unlawful. It appears from the evidence that he had been active and present on former occasions when there was open interference with the employes."

The court concludes by quoting, and adopting as its own, the following language from an authoritative legal reference work:

"The doctrine that there may be a moral intimidation which is illegal, announced by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, was among the first real steps taken in this country toward overturning the rule permitting peaceable picketing and was a forerunner of the later rule that there can be no such thing as peaceable picketing and consequently that all picketing is illegal.”