If, however, the offer is declined, as it may rightfully be, then persistence, importunity, and following do become unjustifiable annoyance and obstruction which is likely soon to savor of intimidation. The nearer this is to the place of business, the greater the interference with the business and especially with the property right of access of the employer. Such an attempted discussion attracts the curious, or, it may be, interested bystanders. They increase the obstruction as well as the aspect of intimidation which the situation quickly assumes.

In the present case, under the conditions which the evidence discloses, all information tendered, all arguments advanced and all persuasion used were intimidation—they could not be otherwise.

It is idle to talk of peaceful communication in such a place and under such conditions. The numbers of the pickets in the groups constituted intimidation. The name “picket” indicated a militant purpose, inconsistent with peaceful persuasion. The employés were made to run the gauntlet. When one or more assaults or disturbances ensued, they characterized the whole campaign, which became effective because of its intimidating character, in spite of the admonitions given by the leaders to their followers as to lawful methods to be pursued, however sincere.

Our conclusion is that picketing thus instituted is unlawful and cannot be peaceable, and may be properly enjoined by the specific term of “picketing” because its meaning is clearly understood in the sphere of the controversy by those who are parties to it. We are supported in that view by many well-reasoned authorities, although there has been contrarity of view. A restraining order against picketing by that name will advise earnest advocates of labor’s cause that the law does not look with favor on an enforced discussion of the merits of the issue between individuals who wish to work and groups of those who do not, under conditions which subject the individuals who wish to work to a severe test of their nerves and physical strength and courage.

But while this is so, we must have every regard for the Congressional intention manifested in the Act to the principle of existing law which declares that ex-employés and others properly acting with them shall have an opportunity, so far as is consistent with peace and law, to observe who are still working for the employer, to communicate with them and to persuade them to join the ranks of his opponents in a lawful, economic struggle.

Regarding as primary the rights of the employés to work for whom they will, and to go freely to and from their place of labor, and keeping in mind the right of the employer incident to his property and business to free access of such employés, what can be done to reconcile the conflicting interests?

Each case must turn on its own circumstances. It is a case for the flexible, remedial power of a Court of equity which may try one mode of restraint, and if it fails or proves to be too drastic, may change it.

McGANN CO. v. LABRECQUE CO.