Strikes of laborers to raise wages or lock outs by employers are lawful; 10 Cox, Cr. Ca. 592; Aluminum Castings Co. v. Local No. 84, 197 Fed. 221; Irving v. Dist. Conn dl, 180 Fed. 896. Strikers who seek a legiti mate end may not be enjoined from pursuing that end in a legitimate way merely because they may have overstepped the line and tres passed on the rights of their adversary, but a decree fixing a barrier at such line and subjecting them to punishment and damages for having crossed it is as far as the court can go ; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis-Chal mers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315. Workmen may seek, take or follow the advice of officers of their un ion as to the advisability of a strike ; Dela ware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Switchmen's Union, 158 Fed. 541; a union may order a strike ; Aluminum Castings Co. v. Local No. 84, 197 Fed. 223 ; workmen may peaceably persuade their fellow-workmen to leave their employ er's service in order to compel an advance in wages ; Rogers v. Everts, 17 N. Y. Supp. 264.
An injunction against strikers should not prohibit either persuasion or picketing as such, but, when carried beyond their legiti mate limits, they become duress or intimida tion and as such may be enjoined; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315 ; but the action of leaders of a strike, conducted primarily for the purpose of com pelling recognition of a labor organization, in paying money to non-union employes of a complainant to induce them to leave its serv ice, was held not within the limits of law ful persuasion and was enjoined ; Tunstall v. Coal Co., 192 Fed. 808, 113 C. C. A. 132, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 453. The limits of lawful persuasion, when exercised by employes striking in order to better the conditions of their employment, are wider than when there is no complaint by employes, but the strike is directed by officials of an extended labor organization for the primary purpose of com pelling its recognition ; Tunstall v. Coal Co., 192 Fed. 808, 113 C. C. A. 132, 41 L. R. A. (N. S.) 453.
A combination of persons not themselves employes, to prc2ure the latter to strike to the injury of the employer's business, was held to be a criminal conspiracy giving also the right to an injunction and damages; Pet tibone v. U. S., 148 U. S. 197, 13 Sup. Ct. 542, 37 L. Ed. 419; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; Thomas v. R. Co., 62 Fed. 803 ; but the tendency in the can courts is not to treat such combinations as unlawful conspiracies ; Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 11 C. C. A. 209, 25 L. R. A.• 414; Johnston Harvester Co. v. Meinhardt, 60
How. Pr. (N. Y.) 168; where the evidence in cluded facts showing intimidation, it is a criminal conspiracy ; Newman v. Com. (Pa.) 34 Rifts. L. J. 313; and an injunction will be granted ; Wick China Co. v. Brown, 164 Pa. 449, 30 Atl. 261.
Striking workmen may not coerce third persons not directly concerned in the strike into 'refusing to buy or use the products of their late employer, any more than he may lawfully coerce third persons into refusing them shelter or food, but the only means of injuring each other which are lawful in such a contest are those that operate directly and immediately upon the control and supply of work to be done and of labor to do it; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315; Irving v. Joint District Council, 180 Fed. 899; Oxley Stave Co. v. Coopers' In ternational Union, 72 Fed. 695.
It is unlawful for striking workmen by any means to induce apprentices under con tract to serve the employer for definite terms to break such contract. Such conduct may be enjoined; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315. Where the service of members of a trade union was neither special, extraordinary or unique in the sense that it could not otherwise be supplied, and that its loss would cause irreparable injury, an injunction could not be granted to re strain the individual laborers from striking; A. R. Barnes & Co. v. Berry, 156 Fed. 72.
A manufacturing company whose skilled workmen are on strike has the right to seek the aid of other manufacturers .to make or complete its products, and the strikers have the reciprocal right to seek the aid of their fellow workmen in the employ of such other manufacturers to prevent that end. They may lawfully combine and co-operate for that purpose; Iron Moulders' Union v. Allis-Chalmers Co., 166 Fed. 45, 91 C. C. A. 631, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 315 ; the employers may lawfully combine to resist the combina tion of employes ; Cote v. Murphy, 159 Pa. 420, 28 Atl. 190, 23 L. R. A. 135, 39 Am. St. Rep. 686.
A person not one of the parties enjoined by a strike injunction, while not strictly chargeable with breach of the injunction, in the same sense as the parties, is bcaind with other members of the public to observe its restrictions when known. He must not aid or abet its violation by others, nor set the known command of the court at defiance by interference or obstruction; and if he does so the court's power to punish is abso lute; Garrigan v. U. S., 163 Fed. 16, 89 C. C. A. 494, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1295.