INTIMIDATION (from JlL. inlimidare, to from Lat. in -- Ihtidus, afraid, from tuners, to fear). Literally, the act of mak ing afraid, in law specifically said of the un lawful use by a person or combination of persons of threats of violence, or of furee to compel an other to do or refrain from doing an act which he has a legal right to do or ahstain from doing, as he chooses. For this form of duress (q.v.) as exercised by combinations, as of strikers, etc., the term intimi dation is especially used. No exact statement of what constitutes such intimidation unlawful has yet been given• nor probably eau such a state ment be made. Neither are the principles upon which the question in au y case shall be decided well settled, although this question is one of primary importance in the administration of the law as strikes of employees against their employers, and as affecting combinations among emitployers to coerce as of manufae turers or dealers either to coerce others or drive them out of business. When the acts complained of as constituting intimidation sic nn lawful in themselves regardless of the question of itttimti dat ion, there is no difference of opinion in the eases iii holding that such acts, when they rea sonably result in coercing a person from the exerciso of his legal freedom of conduct, consti tute unlawful as where actual physical violence is threatened overt acts are done in pursuance of the threat.
iUhere, however, the acts complained of result iu intimidation became of the number of persons by whoa they are done in concert or in accord ance with a eommon plan of so affecting the busi ness or affairs of but would be harniles or ineffectual without such eoutbination, the decisions are at. variance. For example. the
courts are not agreed as to what is and what is not legal pieketing, as it is called ; as to the legality of notice posted in the meeting-rooms of trades unions atfeetiug the standing of par ticutl:u• employers; as to the legality of dcsimtat ing a shop as a scab shop; of the mnttner that may be used in requesting other workmen to quit work; of motifyiuug employers that they have non-uuuion men who trust be discharged to pre vent a strike; of the fining of miteunhers to compel them to etc. Formerly the law law) was unjust iu its discrimination against the performance of these acts by conhinatinns of workmen or others; but these roles have been much mod itied both by statute :tlul ,judicial de eisious. Generally speaking• the courts of the United States, and of some States, setts and New .Tersev. adhere more closely to the spirit of the old common-law rule than is done in sonic of the other States, as New York and Illinois, where the effort of organized labor has been more etrectit e in modifying it. The most general question that TIMID, i, as to whether it is lawful for a body of men to do in unison or in pursuit of a common purpose any act whiell it should be lawful for each her of the body to perform as ;III illtliVill11;11, or tthi•(her acts so III•1101111(.(1 may under the given conditions amount to it conspiracy. See further under I 'oxseiii.“ ; Duimss ;