This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897. Excerpt: ... IV.--CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF "INTIMIDATION." It is desirable, at this stage, to supplement official utterances by testimony from miscellaneous quarters--by some direct evidence as given before the Labour Commission, by decisions given from the Bench, by suggestions from persons really acquainted with picketing practices, and, finally, by a brief glance at the legal customs and extent of picketing, and similar practices, in foreign countries, and the attitude of the Legislature towards them. The following is Sir Frederick Pollock's interpretation of section 7, prepared for the use of the Labour Commission: --"There is no doubt that the intention of this section was to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate picketing The enactment is sufficiently clear, with one exception; and, subject to that exception, the difficulties that occur in its application are such difficulties in obtaining sufficient evidence against ascertained persons as cannot be abolished by the wisdom of any Legislature, or the skill of any draftsman. The exception lies in the word 'intimidates.' Must intimidation be a threat of something which, if executed, would be a criminal offence against persons or tangible property? Or does it include the threat of doing that which would be civilly, though not criminally, wrongful? Or, lastly, can it include the announcement of an intent to do, or cause to be done, something which, without being in itself wrongful, is capable of putting moral compulsion on the person threatened? A specially-constituted Court of the Queen's Bench Division, proceeding on the intention of Parliament, as shown in the Trade Union Act of 1871, as well as in the Act of 1875, has pronounced the first of these interpretations to be the correct one It is to be...