6

cotting. (Compare also statutes set forth in §§ 51, 52, 55.)

or intimidate any other person from following his daily avocation, or interfere in any manner with the labor or employment of another, he shall be punished by confinement in the county jail not less than six months nor more than one year. Tex. P. C., 279, 289, 295, and 304.

The legislature of Louisiana, by a resolution July 12, 1894, condemned the efforts of foreign emissaries to disturb the public peace by fomenting discord between employers and employees at a time "when there is no cause for discontent, and no grievances to be redressed," and commended the railroad operatives of the state for repulsing the overtures of such agitators and refusing to join in the Chicago strike. La., 1894, 149.

The orderly and peaceable assembling or co-operation of persons employed in any calling, trade, or handicraft, for the purpose of obtaining an advance in the rate of wages or compensation, or of maintaining such rate, is not a conspiracy. N. Y. P. C., 170; Minn., 6424.

And no conspiracy is punishable criminally unless it is one of those specifically enumerated (crime, felony, to commit or charge; and see note 5). Minn., 6423; Mon. P. C., 322 (see § 55).

No agreement except to commit a felony upon the person of another, or to commit arson or burglary, amounts to a conspiracy, unless some act beside such agreement be done to effect the object thereof, by one or more of the parties to such agreement. N. J. Rev., p. 261, § 191; Minn., 6425; Mon. P. C., 323.

In New Jersey persons lawfully and peacefully persuading, advising, or encouraging other persons to enter into any combination for or against leaving or entering into the employment of other persons, are by the express statute declared not conspirators. N. J., p. 1296, § 9.

See also § 55 for Maryland and Montana laws.

§ 60. Picketing.-Patrolling or picketing may be defined to be the besetting of the works or place of business of an employer for the purpose of persuading or preventing men from taking work or customers to deal with him, or the following of his employees in the street for the purpose of inducing them to leave their employment; "picketing" being the usual English word, and "patrolling" the American for the same thing. It may be done by combination, so as to amount to a conspiracy or boycott, or consist merely in the individual cases, in which case the only question will be whether it amounts to illegal intimidation; and we may state at once that the law, both English and American, is pretty well settled down to the view that picketing, for the purpose of mere persuasion of workmen not to take employment, and not attended with any disorder or physical or moral intimidation, is now held legal; at least when conducted in a reasonable manner and with not too great a crowd. Indeed, the recent English decisions have gone so far as almost to prescribe that the picket of two persons, which may be relieved by others, like a guard, is about the extent to which the law will allow it; and these two persons must, of course, not be guilty of intimidation as above defined; but we must note that the law will be much more strict when the persons picketing are not in the

employ of the persons against whom they are acting; and, consequently, can have no direct personal object of bettering their own condition; and we may further venture to assert, though there is yet no reported case which makes the distinction, that a picket conducted for the purpose of preventing persons from trading with the employer is at least more likely to be illegal (if indeed it is not always illegal) than a picket established merely to see that other workmen do not take employment, or to persuade those who are still in the employment to leave.

There are quite a number of reported decisions on the precise point of picketing. Perhaps the first English case was that of Reg. v. Druitt, which we have more fully discussed in another connection.1 It arose under the statute of 6 George IV., p. 129, and also 22 Victoria, chapter 34, section 1, of which enacted that "No workman or other person, etc., by reason merely of his entering into an agreement with any workman, etc., or by reason merely of his endeavoring peaceably and in a reasonable manner and without threat or intimidation, direct or indirect, to persuade others to cease or abstain from work, etc., shall be deemed or taken to be guilty of 'molestation' or 'obstruction' within the meaning of the said act." But in spite of the statute of Victoria, it was held that if the picketing 1 10 Cox C. C., 592. See §§ 55 and 57.

amounted to a conspiracy to molest the employer in carrying on his business, it was an offence at common law, and also that the use of insulting expressions and gestures by the pickets to the non-union work-people amounted to intimidation, molestation, or obstruction, as these words were used in the statutes mentioned.

666

'Picketing' done in a way to excite no reasonable alarm, and not to coerce or annoy those who were subject to it, would not be an offence. It was lawful for the defendants to endeavor to persuade persons who had not joined the union to do so, provided that persuasion did not take the shape of coercion and intimidation. But even if abusive language and gestures were not used, if the pickets were so placed or so acted, by watching the movements of the work-people and masters, or by black looks, or by any other annoyance, as in the judgment of the jury would be likely to have a deterring effect in the minds of ordinary persons, it would be 'molestation' and 'obstruction' against this statute."

It is noteworthy that in this case all the defendants were employees of the complainant, or at least were themselves employees of mastertailors in London, the complainant being the well-known tailor, Poole; and that other master-tailors in the same vicinity had been picketed by the same combination under the same trade dispute.

The next case was that of Reg. v. Shepherd.2 There was no evidence whatever of any intimidation, or of anything done by the defendants, who were journeymen shoemakers, other than walking about the street in front of the complainant's factory and advising people not to take employment there, in a civil manner. This was clearly a case of lawful picketing, and the court so held.

In Reg. v. Hibbert,3 on the other hand, where there was evidence that a large number of persons waylaid the workmen and warned them not to take employment, using opprobrious epithets, etc., the picketing was held unlawful.

4

Then came the case of Reg. v. Bauld, which was an indictment against the defendants, not apparently employees of the complainant, to persuade his employees to quit work and to prevent others from taking employment. Baron Huddlestone, who was not, as it seems, familiar with the growth of the law upon the subject, in his charge to the jury, denied that picketing was lawful except for the purpose of obtaining information simply, or finding out whether the men on strike were secretly working, and not for the purpose of besetting the employer or persuading others not to work, and incidentally expressed

211 Cox C. C., 325.

413 Cox C. C., 283.

13 Cox C. C., 82.