NOVEMBER,1946 351 publicauthoritiesonpicketingsupportedbythe Unionarethosetokeeptrafficopenforpedestrians andvehicles,toinsureaccesstoplacespicketed,to preventtheuseoffraudulentsigns,andtomaintain order.TheUnionhassupportedmaspicketingwhere theseconditionsaremet. Butnoclaimsoftherightstopicketjustifythe useofforcetopreventaccesstoplantsonstrikeby thosewhoarewilingtocrosspicketlines.Reports ofcurrentstrikesshowinstancesinwhichpickets havepreventedaccesstoplantsbyexecutiveoficers, bymaintenancecrewskeepingupsuchservicesas heatandlighting,andbyclericalworkersnotmem- bersofthestrikingunion.Theseareplainabusesof therightofpicketing.IntheviewoftheAmerican CivilLibertiesUnion,therightofaccess,notonly ofthesepersons,butofanyandallothers,isunde- batable.Thetworights—ofpicketingandofaccess toplacespicketedarenotconflicting. ..11 TheACLUnowmakesapractice,accordingtoanotherof itsmemoranda,ofsendingobserverstopicketlineswhere violenceisthreatened,determiningitssupportofthestrikers incourtonwhetherornotintheopinionoftheobserversit wasthestrikersorotherswhostartedtheviolence. RogerBaldwin,theACLUdirector,wasoneoftheprin- cipaldefendantsinperhapsthemostfamouscaseunderthe NewJerseyRiotAct.12SilkstrikersinPaterson,afterhaving beendeniedahal,heldanoutdoormeetinginfrontofthe CityHall.Theriotactwasreadtothem,andBaldwinandthe strikeleaderswerearested.Accordingtotheindictment,they, togetherwithdiversotherevildisposedpersonsto thenumberof500ormore.. .unlawfully,routously,riotously,andtumultuouslydidassembleand gathertogethertothedisturbanceof thepublic peace,. . .andtheydidthenandthereunlawfuly, routously,riotously,andtumultuouslymakeand uttergreatandloudnoisesandthreatenings. . . to thegreatterroranddisturbance. . . ofallcitizens ofsaidstateiassing. . . Thelawconcerningpicketingisinsuchafluxthat it is almostirrelevanttoatheoreticaldiscussiontonotewhat,at thismoment,isorisnotpermited.Asrecentlyas25years ago,picketinghadno,oratbestasmallandprecarious,legal- ity."Thereisnosuchthingaspeacefulpicketing."13"The veryfactofestablishingapicketlinebytheappelantsisevi- denceoftheirintentiontoannoy,embarrass,andintimidate theempol yeesoftheappeleecompany,whethertheyresorted tophysicalviolenceornot."14Bothofthesedecisionswere writenin1921,aswasalsothefolowingquotationfroma U.S.SupremeCourtDecision,"whichatthetimewasabig stepforwardforlabor. .. .Theproblem/is/ . . . toreconciletherights oftheemployerinhisbusinessandintheaccessof hisemployeestohisplaceofbusinessandegress therefromwithoutintimidationorobstruction,on theonehand,andtherightoftheempol yees,recent orexpectant,tousepeaceableandlawfulmeansto inducepresentemployeesandwould-beemployees tojointheirranks,ontheother.16 .. .Inthepresentcasethethreeorfourgroupsof picketersweremadeupoffromfourtotwelveina group.Theyconstitutedthepicketline.Eachunion interested. . . hadseveralrepresentativesonthe picketline,andassaultsandviolenceensued. . .All informationtendered,allargumentsadvanced,and BibliotecaGinoBianco alpersuasionusedundersuchcircumstanceswere intimidation.Theycouldnotbeotherwise.It isidle totalkofpeacefulcommunicationinsuchaplace andundersuchconditions.Thenumbersofthepicketsconstitutedintimidation.Thename'picket'indi- catedamilitantpurpose,inconsistentwithpeaceabel persuasion.. .Whenoneormoreassaultsordis- turbancesensued,theycharacterizedthewholecampaign,whichbecameefectivebecauseof itsintimi- datingcharacter,inspiteoftheadmonitionsgiven bytheleaderstotheirfolowersastolawfulmethods tobepursued,howeversincere. .. .Wethinkthatthestrikersandtheirsympa- thizersengagedintheeconomicstruggleshouldbe limitedtoonerepresentativeforeachpointofingress andegressintheplantorplaceofbusiness,andthat alothersbeenjoinedfromcongregatingorloitering attheplantor intheneighboringstreets. . .The purposeshouldbetopreventtheinevitableintimida- tionofthepresenceofgroupsofpickets,buttoallowmissionaries. . . Immediatelyafterthisdecision,thecourtreversedthefindingoftheArizonaSupremeCourt,whichhadheldloudand libelouspicketingtobepeacefulandlawful,anddeclaredthe anti-injunctionlawinquestionunconstitutional.17Forawhile thesetwoSupremealmadecisions,onealowingonemissionaryandtheotherrestrictingthemannerofpicketing,setthe twolimitsofthepaternforstatecourts."Statejudgeswho hadpermittedmorepicketsnowalowedoneoratmosttwo; ontheotherhand,somecourtsbegantopermitpicketing."18 Morerecently,thecourtshaveheldthattherighttopicket is,asatypeoffreespeech,guaranteedbytheConstitution." Ingeneral,picketingislawful ifthepicketsabstainfrom"un- lawfulintimidation."Whatexactlythisphrasemeans,what exactlythediferenceisbetweenintimidationand,onthe onehand,violenceand,ontheother,persuasion,isaquestion thatisdiferentlyansweredbydiferentcourtsanddiferent- lyinterpretedbythepoliceforceofdifferentareas. Thelegalityofpicketingcanbecircumventedinvarious ways.Picketshavebeenarrestedforcontemptofcourt,after violatinganinjunction,20fordisorderlyconduct,obstructing trafic,assault,disturbingthepeace,trespass,vagrancy,unlawfulassembly,rioting,criminalsyndicalism. If allother legaldevicesfail,martiallawmaybedeclared,asitwas,for example,byGovernorMcNuttinIndianain1935.Formonths folowingthebreakingofastrikeinTerreHaute,therewere twokindsof law,civil lawforeveryoneelseandmartial law,eventuallyadministeredbycivilianofficials,forlabor. Moreefectivethanthislegalstructure,howevercynicaly applied,aretheextra-legalorsemi-legalmethodsusedbythe -policetocombatstrikes.Beatinguponepicket is oftena beterdeterrentthanarrestingahundred. 3. Apicketmaybesaidtohavethreepurposes,orthesame functiononthreelevels:toinformthoseunawareofthefact thatthereisastrike,topersuadeworkerstojointhestrike, topreventstrikebreakersfromgoingtowork.Howcanthese purposesbebestserved? TheAmericanlabormovement,alustyadolescent,hasnot deveol pedasuficientstabilitytogiveonlyoneanswertothat question.Inthelabormovementofpre-1941Germany, the largestandmostpowerfulintheworld,andparticularlyinthe
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTExMDY2NQ==