Original Document

STRIKE CONDITIONS IN PENNSYLVANIA SOFT COAL FIELDS, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1928.

The subcommittee met at 8 o'clock p.m., in the parlor of the Hotel Moore, Indiana, Pa., Senator Frank R. Gooding presiding:
Present also: Hon. J. N. Langham, president judge of the Court of Common Pleas of Indiana County, Pa.; Hon. Lee S. North, State senator; and Hon. Bert H. Lichteberger, mayor of Indiana.

Senator GOODING (chairman of the subcommittee). Judge Langham, the subcommittee is now in session and would be very glad to hear you if you care to make any statement in regard to your injunction. Of course we have heard a good deal about it, but you know the situation much better than we do, and I am sure that we would be glad to hear your story....

Judge LANGHAM. I do not know just what to say to you about the injunction. The injunction that is pending is what we here call a preliminary injunction, and a preliminary injunction is issued, under our equity rules, returnable within five days, and at that time the parties plaintiff and defendant appear and agree upon a time for final hearing; or I should say that it is in reality a preliminary hearing, but as the practice goes here they make up the record and agree that the preliminary hearing shall be taken as the final hearing. That is in order to obviate the necessity for a second hearing, unless something develops, and one side or the other requires another day to answer, something that has developed.
Now, then, as far as these injunctions are concerned we have not had a hearing at all, and–

Senator WHEELER (interposing). Why have you not had a hearing in them, Judge Langham?

Judge LANGHAM. The reason of it is this: There was a hearing set in one case, and I do not remember now which one it was, for a certain date. Then the defendant's attorneys, the coal miners, came in and asked for a continuance for some reason, and I do not recall what it was now, but it was continued. I believe the fact is that it was continued until a date certain, and at that time, as to that particular hearing and prior thereto the plaintiff's attorneys, and I would explain that there are two attorneys for the plaintiff; well, one of the attorneys appeared, and the defendant's attorney was present, and stated that the other attorney for the plaintiff was, I think, down at Washington before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or at Philadelphia; anyway, that it was important for him to be present, and he seemed rather to be pressing the attorney for the defendants. …Then the matter was continued, without a day being set, and they have never yet agreed upon a day for a hearing…

Senator WHEELER. But assuming that the defendants would not agree upon a time, or that the plaintiff would not agree upon a time, what would the court do in the matter?

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, well, then the court would set it down, and I should say: Here is a time when we can hear this matter, and we want it cleaned up.

Senator WHEELER. Exactly.

Judge LANGHAM. Yes; and really that is the whole status of the injunction proceeding. And the restraining order was issued on the allegations set out in the bill supported by affidavits…

Senator WHEELER. You took not testimony at the time that it was granted?

Judge LANGHAM. No; not then, nor since. When we have a hearing it is up to the court to say whether that injunction shall be dissolved or whether it will be made permanent, or whether it will be modified and made permanent. That is the situation in the matter.

Senator WAGNER. May I ask you a question?

Judge LANGHAM. Certainly.

Senator WAGNER. And I am asking it as a former judge of the Supreme Court of New York. And I want to state that I am asking this question under the same conditions stated by Senator Wheeler, not as an inquisitor, but as a matter of information: Originally your injunction was granted upon an ex parte application.

Judge LANGHAM. Yes; and supported by affidavits…

Senator WAGNER. But the other side had no chance to be heard then at all?

Judge LANGHAM. No; and that is the purpose of a hearing.

Senator WAGNER. And of course I suppose it is the most drastic exercise of power that a court of equity has, the power of injunction. I take it there was no dispute about that matter.

Judge LANGHAM. No.

Senator WAGNER. Does your procedure provide for a day definite after the ex parte injunction is granted, when you will hear the other side so as to give them a chance to meet the allegations upon which the preliminary injunction rests.

Judge LANGHAM. How is that?

Senator WAGNER. Is there a definite time that you fix in the injunction order?

Judge LANGHAM. Yes, sir; there is a definite time fixed, as I explained a moment ago. The writ is made returnable within five days.

Senator WAGNER. All right. May I ask you, then, when the five days expired after some of these injunctions–and I have read some of them and I think they are drastic, I mean, they are drastic injunctions. Did the other side appear then to be heard?

Judge LANGHAM. They appeared by attorney and said, "We are not ready, neither side." I said, "When will we hear this?" And I do not recall now whether it was in this instance that I told you about, that they agreed then and there on a definite date, but in one case there was a definite date fixed. Probably it was fixed at that time but I do not know now....

Senator WAGNER. You mean that you wait until all of the attorneys on both sides agree upon a date?

Judge LANGHAM. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. Did the defendants in this case, or their attorneys, ask for a hearing?

Judge LANGHAM. . …I think twice. Then the defendants themselves came in and gave reasons, whatever they were, why they could not go on with that hearing and would like to have another date fixed. Then another date was fixed and agreed upon by the attorneys for plaintiff and defendants, and then when that time came I believe I do recall why that case was further continued.

Senator WHEELER. And they have not asked for a hearing since?

Judge LANGHAM. No. …

Senator WAGNER. Do the State courts restrain picketing under any circumstances of any kind?

Judge LANGHAM. Just so far as interfering with men going to work.

Senator WHEELER. Do not the Pennsylvania courts recognize peaceful picketing?

Judge LANGHAM. Well, I think they do; yes, peaceful picketing. But it is pretty hard to determine what that is.

Senator WHEELER. No, I think the courts have pretty generally decided what peaceful picketing is, peaceful persuasion, I mean so long as force is not used. I mean that our own Supreme Court has done that…

Judge LANGHAM. Until there is a hearing we can not determine what the status of the injunction really should be. When we have that hearing then we can either dissolve, modify, or make permanent the preliminary injunction depending on the evidence. …I think it is funny that the defendants would not clamor for a hearing, if they want any hearing....

Senator WAGNER. I see that you forbid marching or riding or picketing upon the public roads, and apparently preventing pretty nearly everything.

Judge LANGHAM. That is to prevent interfering with the men who want to go to work.

Senator WAGNER. Is it your idea of the law, if I may ask that question, that a striker has no right to speak to one who is employed upon premises where a strike has been called?

Judge LANGHAM. I would say this, that I think he has no right to persuade him, to restrain him, another in the employ of the employer, if the fellow wanted to go to work.

Senator WAGNER. That is not what I mean.

Senator WHEELER. Don't you think he would have the right to say to a man on the public highway: There is a strike on here, and I do not think you ought to go to work here.

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, yes; I think he could say that.

Senator WAGNER. But you restrain him from saying that.

Judge LANGHAM. Well, we wanted a hearing on what they have been doing out there.

Senator WAGNER. This covers any sort of picketing, which means that he could not go to the particular individual I have imagined, and say: We are trying to secure better conditions here, or higher wages, or something else that we think is for the betterment of our organization. Now, under your injunction that would be contempt of court, if a man approached another man and said those very things to him, or said anything in fact to him in connection with the strike.

Judge LANGHAM. . …We made it very broad in order to get all of the evidence in.

Senator WAGNER. But there is a provision in here that they can not advertise in any newspaper, advising or warning men to stay away from the mines.

Judge LANGHAM. You have some old case, there, have you not?

Senator WAGNER. No; this is the preliminary injunction....

Judge LANGHAM. We wanted to prevent the intercepting of men going to work, and that interception is prohibited and prevented by prohibiting the picketing. Three or four fellows are there, and they intercept a workman, and that is why picketing is stopped.

Senator WAGNER. That is what you wanted to stop.

Judge LANGHAM. Yes.

Senator WAGNER. And you do not think that that is interference with freedom of speech?

Judge LANGHAM. No, sir; I do not think so. …

Senator WHEELER. That injunction against peaceful picketing or peaceful persuasion, is not that generally regarded throughout the country to-day by the most of the courts as permissible?

Judge LANGHAM. I think the trend has been that way; however, they have been closing up a little closer recently, but I think that is the general trend.

Senator WAGNER. Has it not also been recognized that in the matter of a trouble of this kind, or of any kind, that the press of the country is open to those who want to proclaim their claims with the hope of informing the public as to what their grievance is, with the purpose of securing the support of public opinion. And that the way to do that is either get a statement in the press or put an advertisement in the press. I mean, that is the well-recognized way of getting to the public, to tell them your side of the story. Now, do the injunctions that you have granted restrain them from doing that...?

Judge LANGHAM. Well, if it goes to the point of preventing the employment of labor by employers, and of preventing an employee from working who wants to work; yes, I think that is right.

Senator WHEELER. Don't you think that I have as much right to say to a man by means of an advertisement: You should not go to work here because there is a strike on, as the mining company has to advertise for men and asking them to come to work there?

Judge LANGHAM. That seems reasonable.

Senator WHEELER. When you come down to it, have I not as much right, as a citizen of this country, to go to a man and say: Now, there is a strike on here, and we are asking for higher wages and trying to get better conditions, as the mining company has to go to union men, for instance, and try to persuade them to go to work? That is the situation as I see it here. That a mining company has a perfect right to go to a man belonging to the union and say: We can not pay you any more money than we are offering because of the economic conditions in our particular industry, but we would like to have you come to work and we will do the best we can for you. And yet, on the other hand, the union man can not say: They can pay you more money, and we can get more money by sticking together. Don't you think it is just as fair for the one side as for the other, to be able to do that?

Judge LANGHAM. Well, I suppose so.

Senator WHEELER. I do not want to be in the position, Judge Langham, of questioning your motives. … cause this is your business and not ours. But there has been so much said in this case, and it has been brought into so much prominence, that of course we are naturally quite anxious to know all that we can learn about it. I have not read the injunctions myself, and have not seen them to read them except a moment ago; but, I understood, and this is merely hearsay with me, that there was an injunction against the men assembling down here in a church and singing hymns, what about that?

Judge LANGHAM. There has been a good deal of talk about that. Here was the situation out there at Rossiter: The church in question is located on an eminence overlooking the pit mouth of the mine, where the men enter the mine, and what those men were doing during the summer months was, congregating on that lot, in as large numbers as possible, of course ostensibly for religious worship but in fact for the purpose of getting a crowd there to intimidate the workmen. And they were singing hymns, as alleged to the court, winding up with hostile expressions, such "We will get you by and by" and things of that kind. I do not remember what it was taken all together, but we restrained them from doing that. And I called in these people afterwards, and I said to them: Now, we do not propose to put any restraints on your worship at that church. You can go in at any hour of the day or night if you will go into the church, but keep off that lot. And for the reason that they were singing hostile songs, and it was a restraint on their hostile expressions. They assembled there at six o'clock in the morning and at three o'clock in the afternoon. Six o'clock is when the men go to work and three o'clock is when they pass out of the mine.

Senator WHEELER. Of course, you are getting into a pretty dangerous thing, it seems to me, when you issue injunctions against the singing of such hymns, because if that thing ever gets started in this country–well, what would be the result?

Judge LANGHAM. We are not doing that. That was as to hostile songs. A couple of weeks ago some woman wrote me a letter, and I anticipated that it was probably by one of the women who belonged to the strikers, who signed her name "Secretary of the Committee," and said that the hymnals had been worn out and they needed a couple of dozen hymnals.

Senator WHEELER. Yes; and I understand that you contributed to the cause.

Judge LANGHAM. And she sent me a self-addressed and stamped envelope–or not a stamped envelope, but one containing an address–so I wrote out a check for a couple of dozen hymn books, and wrote her a letter and told her I was very glad to help along with any religious exercise, whenever I could, and that I hoped the hymnals would be used for religious purposes…

Senator WAGNER. Do you ever recall a case where an organization or any group advocating their cause were restrained from advertising in newspapers so as to tell the public their situation and inform them of their grievances or their purposes?

Judge LANGHAM. I do not.

Senator WAGNER. So in that regard the injunction is a novel proposition.

Judge LANGHAM. It may be. I can not understand why they do not come forward and press for a hearing....

Senator WAGNER. Well, I will say quite frankly, Judge Langham, that I was informed, although the information may be unreliable, that they had been pressing for a hearing but were unable to get it.

Judge LANGHAM. Well, they have not been pressing for a hearing at all. You have certainly been misinformed....I have been willing to give them a hearing at any time, and have been all along....I do not want to speak for anybody else, but I am of the impression that they do not want a hearing, at least not very badly.

Senator WHEELER. Judge Langham, one of your injunctions restrained, did it not, the union from distributing any relief to the miners?

Judge LANGHAM. No; and that relief, if you will read the restraining order, is in furtherance of conspiracy to prevent the men from going to work if they wanted to go, and that is all there is to it. As far as contributions are concerned for the maintenance of these people, the best evidence of that as we know and as everybody knows lies in the fact that contributions are going in there daily, weekly, and monthly for their maintenance. But to employ men in furtherance, and that is the wording of it, of a conspiracy to prevent the men from going to work.

Senator WAGNER. Do you mean to say that you regard it as a conspiracy if a union that has called a strike goes to the relief of one of the members of the union who is on strike?

Judge LANGHAM. No, sir; I mean nothing of the kind.

Senator WAGNER. What is the conspiracy that you have in mind?

Judge LANGHAM. A conspiracy to employ people to go in there and interfere with the workmen who want to go to work.

Senator WHEELER. Do you mean after they have gone to work?

Judge LANGHAM. Yes; or to prevent them from going if they want to go. But as to the matter of giving relief, no, and the union, and individuals everywhere, can come into this town and get contributions for the relief of these people.

Senator WAGNER. I am trying to see if I can understand the principle of conspiracy in this case: Do you mean that if I go and give money to a miner in order that he may live during the time that he refuses to go back to work under the conditions laid down by the labor organizations, I mean until they are complied with?

Judge LANGHAM. Oh, no.

Senator WAGNER. Then what is it?

Judge LANGHAM. If there is a body of men contributing to send a man in there, or to send men in there and to pay them for going in and endeavoring to prevent other men from working. That is the only conspiracy that I can see in that, and that would be a mighty hard thing to prove I expect…

Senator WHEELER. There is one matter that I do want to ask you about, and I do not want you to think by asking you that I am reflecting at all upon you, but it has been told to us that you were interested in some of the mining properties themselves where these injunctions have been issued.

Judge LANGHAM. No; and I never was. …

Senator WHEELER. Are you interested in any mines at all?

Judge LANGHAM. Yes; and I wanted to tell you about it and that I would like to sell out. I am interested in one common partnership in which there are four people. We are obligated for $30,000 in that property. I am interested to the extent of five-sixteenths of that amount. That is a common partnership. Then there is another common partnership in which I have a one-twelfth interest, and it is capitalized at $30,000. Neither of them is connected in any way with the companies that are under injunction.

Senator WHEELER. Have you had a strike on at those mines?

Judge LANGHAM. No; they just quit work. I mean that they shut-down. We shutdown probably between two and three years ago.

Senator WHEELER. So that they are not involved in this labor trouble at all?

Judge LANGHAM. Not a bit. …

Senator WAGNER. Now, Judge Langham, to show that the courts do take contrary views, I just went through some litigation in New York in which the courts not only sustained, as they always have, the right of labor organizations to picket for the purpose of inducing those working in an industry in which there is a strike from joining the strike breakers, but the courts have also said that they would not enjoin the efforts of the union in the matter of inducing employees to violate a provision in their contract of employment that they would not join another union. We in New York have held that that is a rather progressive pronouncement. …

Senator WAGNER. It was very nice of you, Judge Langham, to come here and exchange views with us...

(Thereupon at nine o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned, and was later called together again to hear further statements, as follows:)

THE MOORE HOTEL, Indiana, Pa.

....Senator GOODING (chairman of the subcommittee). I believe there was a request that the subcommittee be called together to hear a further statement in regard to the injunction in this county.

Senator WAGNER. Mr. Sciotto, you are an attorney admitted to practice law in the state of Pennsylvania?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. And you represent the United Mine Workers of America?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I do.

Senator WAGNER. And you represented them in this injunction proceeding that we discussed at the meeting we held to-night with Judge Langham?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. There was a statement made that no effort had been made by the defendants in this injunction proceeding to secure a hearing after the ex parte injunction had been granted. Will you state to the committee what you did in behalf of the United Mine Workers of America in order to try to secure a hearing on the application made for a permanent injunction?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Since August 30, 1927, there have been five preliminary injunctions granted against the United Mine Workers of America in Indiana County. The first injunction was granted August 30, and under the equity rules of the supreme court after a preliminary order is signed it is returnable within five days of that date. The court either hears ex parte testimony on the preliminary order, the signing of the order, or it is within his discretion to continue it–that is, to continue the hearing. The court, at the expiration of five days, in pursuance of motion made by counsel for plaintiff, continued the hearings as well as the injunction, and fixed a date suitable to the court and counsel, on both sides, which was October 18, 1927.

At the time this matter was discussed–that is, the date for the hearing on the preliminary injunction ordered on August 30, 1927–John Ghizzoni, of the national executive board of the United Mine Workers of America, James Mack, attorney for the plaintiff, and myself, were in the Judge's chambers, and Mr. Ghizzoni most strenuously insisted upon an earlier date for the hearing…

Senator WAGNER. And did the judge refuse to give you an earlier hearing?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Well, I would not say that the judge absolutely refused, but it seemed to have been inconvenient, and for this reason: The first Monday in September is criminal court, and the third Monday in September is civil court, so he was pretty well filled up as far as that was concerned. But after that the court was open and he was not in session and he could have fixed it for sometime then.

Senator WAGNER. How long would it have taken him to hear this application…?

Mr. SCIOTTO. The hearing would take a day and a half or two days, because he would require all the testimony of the plaintiff and defendants to be heard at once, and his usual practice is not to limit it to the ex parte hearing, but be combines the preliminary hearing and the final hearing at one time, and that is what he desired to do.
At any rate the 18th day of October, 1927, was fixed, after much discussion between the judge and counsel for the plaintiff, John Ghizzoni and myself, and there was much pressure brought by our side to have an earlier date fixed, but the court made an excuse for every date that was suggested, and that was the most convenient for him at that time.

Senator WAGNER. Were you in a position then to ask for a modification of some of these very drastic provisions, like not permitting any picketing at all, or not permitting advertisements to be placed in the newspapers?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We were in a position under a recent Supreme Court decision to ask the court to modify the order regarding picketing. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has followed the Supreme Court of the United States in that the amount of pickets to be allowed is discretionary with the court. We felt that it would not do us any good to request a modification then, and then October 18 came along, and I want to be fair about it, that date was not suitable to me, because I had to be at Philadelphia in an appeal before the Supreme Court of the State, so I requested a continuance, and the earliest date that could be fixed that was suitable to the court and counsel on either side was November 29.
That was on the first injunction. On November 29, 1927, or shortly before that date, the chief counsel for the plaintiff, Mr. Liveright, of Clearfield, called up associate counsel and said he could not attend to this matter at that time for some reason or other, and I think he had some case in Philadelphia, and requested a continuance. A motion was then presented to the court by them, and it was continued and no date was fixed.
Since that time I have discussed the matter of a hearing with Mr. Mack repeatedly–

Senator WAGNER (interposing). Who is Mr. Mack?

Mr. SCIOTTO. He is associate counsel for the plaintiff in Indiana County. We did agree on one date, and I sent a copy of the agreement to him for execution, and he referred it to Mr. Liveright, and that date was not suitable for the reason that Mr. Liveright had to go to Washington on some case. I have discussed the matter of a hearing with him repeatedly. As to this matter of the defendants not desiring to have a hearing, it may have come up in this way: At the time that the hearing was continued on November 29, 1927, we agreed that the date should be fixed suitable to plaintiff and defendants and the court. We have not been able to get a date suitable for the plaintiff since then. But that is only as to one injunction. And that is as far as we have got on any hearing. We got at least one date on that injunction, but on the other there has never been a date fixed by the court.

Senator WAGNER. And did you ask the court to fix a time for a hearing?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We thought it was useless to fix a date on subsequent injunctions unless we could first eliminate the first injunction. In view of what had developed in the matter of the first injunction we did not think it advisable to make an attempt to get a hearing on any of the others.

Senator WAGNER. All I have to say in regard to it is that you have a most extraordinary proceeding. Such a thing could not happen in our courts in the State of New York, such long delays, with such a drastic injunction hanging over the people granted ex parte without hearing.

Mr. SCIOTTO. Well, in 1925 there was granted at another mine an injunction, and one effect of it was that it prevented the United Mine Workers of America from taking a certain lot title to which was in them. The order prohibited any man on strike from going on any road or any place that led toward this mine. This property happened to be on the road that led toward the mine, and the court enjoined those people from using that property. We attempted to get a hearing then but were unable to do so.
Senator WAGNER. Did you ask the judge for a hearing?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We did, but were unable to get a hearing.

Senator WAGNER. Was that Judge Langham?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes; the same judge.

Senator WAGNER. What answer did he make?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Unsuitable.

Senator WAGNER. What do you mean by that?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Well, that his court was coming on next week, or he was usually busy, or that he was called to preside outside, that was especially the case. We made a test case of it and we lined up all the strikers and were determined to go on this property. The sheriff in company with about 45 or 50 deputy sheriffs got right at the entrance of the road that led to the property, and lined up his deputy sheriffs and the deputies were all armed of course, and dared any of us to pass the line where the deputies were.

Senator WAGNER. On the public road?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. And you wanted to get to the property which belonged to the United Mine Workers of America?

Mr. MARK. Yes, sir. The sheriff told us the only way we could get to it would be over his dead body and those of his deputies, and he said he was authorized to do that by Judge Langham.

Senator WAGNER. I believe that you are the president of the local union?

Mr. MARK. Yes, sir. I don't know whether he remembers that statement or not. But the sheriff made the statement that the only way we could go on the land that we owned was over his dead body. And when he was questioned he said he was acting under the orders of Judge Langham.

Mr. SCIOTTO. The purpose of that was to make some arrangements to get it into the Federal court. We had some fellows there who were aliens, and we advised one man to go up and let the deputies or one of them lay his hands on him. After that was done we filed a petition for removal, to take this case from Indiana County into the Federal court at Pittsburgh. And that is the only hearing we ever had. There has been no disposition of that injunction, which is still pending in the Federal court. …

Senator WAGNER. Is it usual for the courts of this State to grant ex parte injunctions of this character, or do they wait until both sides are heard before an injunction is granted?

Mr. SCIOTTO. No; it is usually granted as the court has granted it here; usually upon affidavit and the giving of bond, and then the question of modification or unlawfulness is determined at the hearing.

Senator WAGNER. You undoubtedly examined the law on the subject of your own State.

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. Did you find any precedent at all for an injunction as drastic as this injunction that was issued here, or, I will say, these several injunctions, that have been issued here?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I have not, except the one that was appealed in Jefferson County, which appeared to be as drastic.

Senator WAGNER. And your highest court said what about that?

Mr. SCIOTTO. That appeared to be as drastic as some of these.

Senator WAGNER. Preventing picketing altogether?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Preventing picketing altogether…

Senator GOODING. Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania sustain the lower court?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes; it did. Our supreme court in the Jefferson County case left the question of lawfulness of picketing discretionary with the trial judge. Following the decision by Chief Justice Taft it held that whether the miners would be allowed to picket or not, and how much, and what number of them should be, would be entirely up to the trial judge, to outline that procedure. But in this county it has been outlined by the former sheriff; the sheriff of the county has usually outlined what they could and could not do.

Senator WAGNER. Peaceful picketing has been sustained by the United States Supreme Court.
Mr. SCIOTTO . Yes; it has. …

Senator WAGNER. Did you find any authority for the restraining order to prevent you from advertising in a newspaper?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I have not found any Pennsylvania authority for that. Nor have I found any authorities that would prohibit a congregation from gathering on church property or in a church. The injunction containing the prohibition against congregating on the Rossiter church lot, prohibits them from singing songs of a hostile or intimidating nature.
Those men there at Rossiter after that order was granted were brought in in contempt of court. They went there and they were singing, it is true, but the songs that they sang were all taken from the hymn books. And we filed an answer to the petition for a rule for contempt, and we alleged in our petition that the songs sung there were taken from the hymn books and we had the hymn books in court. As to whether they were hostile or intimidating was not determined, because there was no hearing on the contempt proceedings whatever. After they were brought in the court merely told them not to sing any songs on the lot. And in the bill it states that right now: That the plaintiff had no objection to their singing songs in the church itself, but that they did have objection to their singing songs out on the lot.

Senator WAGNER. Have you any precedent for a restraining order to restrain anyone from passing along a public highway to his own property?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I have not.

Senator WAGNER. And yet these people were restrained from doing that?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We were in the Luzerne injunction.

Senator GOODING (chairman of the subcommittee). Well, I believe that is all....


Credit: United States Senate Subcommittee of the Committee On Interstate Commerce, Hotel Moore, Indiana, PA, Sunday, February 26, 1928.