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 sheriff's 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. When was that hearing had?

Mr. SCIOTTO. I don't recall. The injunction was granted in 1925, And I do not know whether it was in the early or the latter part-it was in May, I am informed by someone here. I do not think we had a hearing on that in Pittsburgh until some time in September or October.

Senator WAGNER. And the case was submitted to the Judge after your hearing?

Mr. SCIOTTO. At Pittsburgh.

Senator WAGNER. Yes.

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. In the Federal court there?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir. There was no testimony taken. The only thing that took place there was that when we removed the case there was argument held on that question, whether or not the Federal court had jurisdiction to take the case from the court in Indiana County. But there was no testimony of any kind taken, only that argument. And that is all that has been done in the case. Senator WAGNER. Then it was submitted to the judge? Mr. SCIOTTO. In November.

Senator WAGNER. And it still remains before the judge?
Mr. SCIOTTO. That is, in Pittsburgh?

Senator WAGNER. I am speaking about Pittsburgh.

Mr. SCIOTTO. Yes, sir.

Senator WAGNER. What did the judge say or do after he heard your argument?

Mr. SCIOTTO. Well, the court didn't know whether he could take jurisdiction or not.

Senator WAGNER. But you were entitled to a decision at least on that point.

Mr. SCIOTTO. We were, but I don't recall whether the court signed the order that it didn't have jurisdiction, or I don't know what it was, but I have got it here at my office. I am not so certain now what that order involved, because we practically abandoned any further action on that injunction.

Mr. MARK. The case is still pending before the Federal court. Mr. SCIOTTO. We have never taken any further action, and it has been so long that it means nothing to the men now.

Mr. MARK. We have only one complete hearing on an injunction in this county against the United Mine Workers of America, and that was in 1922. There was a final hearing held and Judge Langham made the injunction perpetual without any modification or changes whatsoever.

Senator WAGNER. And you are in no position to appeal until after Judge Langham disposes of the case?

Mr. SCIOTTO. We could appeal from a preliminary injunction but it would mean nothing. It would be sent back for the testimony. Senator WAGNER. Did the judge ever discuss the question of law with you at all, on the matter of picketing and advertising in newspapers?

Mr. SCIOTTO. No, sir.

Senator WAGNER. Did you have a chance to take that matter up? Mr. SCIOTTO. No; that phase of it has never been discussed with the court.

Senator WAGNER. The reason I ask is that in our jurisdiction even where a judge, say, upon an ex parte application accompanied by affidavits, might grant a very drastic injunction for a period, then, without waiting until the expiration of the five days' notice, a man can come into the judge and tell him of the drastic provisions and that undoubtedly he must have a misconception of the law, and the judge has a right to modify his injunction right then and there if he is convinced that he is wrong.

Mr. SCIOTTO. That matter was never taken up with Judge Langham in that manner, because I did not believe there would be anything done until the court would hear all the evidence.

Mr. MARK. We had some cases of contempt out there at Rossiter and the judge was asked by our attorney whether the injunction that referred to the church proceedings down there would be effective on Sunday, and he replied that the injunction would be effective Sunday and every other day.

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 WAGNER. You can not find any such precedent or authority except that one case. Well, I will say that we can not find any such thing in our State.

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 the 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. Although, of course, the State courts are not bound to follow the Federal court on those questions.

Mr. SCIOTTO. No. But the State court under that decision does not proscribe peaceful picketing.

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.

The injunction granted by Judge Langham on the 8th day of November, 1927, is here made a part of the record, as follows:

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PEnnsylvania,

Indiana County, ss:

To A. J. Phillips, individually and as vice-president of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; Tony Ross, individually and as organizer of the United Mine Workers of America; Robert Slee, individually and as recording and financial secretary of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; James Mark, individually and as president of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; John Ghizzoni, individually and as member of the national executive board of the United Mine Workers of America; Faber McCloskey, individually and as vice president of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; Richard Gilbert, individually and as secretary and treasurer of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; Sam Truance, individually and as president of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; John Ferrio, individually and as treasurer of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; Levi McConnaughey, individually and as board member of district No. 2,

United Mine Workers of America; Harold Altman, Howard_Altman, Charles Anderson, Francis Brennan, Francis Burns, Nick Cherry, Eugene Comport, Louise Del Grande, James Elliott, Howard Hatherall, Robert Jackson, Julius Johnston, Charles Johnston, Howard Keys, William Maddox, John Mock, Walter Nowickie, Joe Paleo, jr., Joe Patterson, Arch Serian, Carmine Serian, George Shilling, Santo Sarrotto, James Trunzo, district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America, and Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America, their associates, aiders, abettors and agents, or any other person acting with the above named, or hereafter named, defendants. Greeting:

Whereas it hath been represented unto us at our court of common pleas for the County of Indiana, in a certain cause there pending, wherein Clearfield Bituminous Coal Corporation is plaintiff, and you, the said A. J. Phillips, individually and as vice president of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; Tony Ross, individually and as organizer of the United Mine Workers of America; Robert Slee, individually and as recording and financial secretary of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; James Mark, individually and as president of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; John Ghizzoni, individually and as member of the national executive board of the United Mine Workers of America; Faber McCloskey, individually and as vice president of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; Richard Gilbert, individually and as secretary and treasurer of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; Sam Truance, individually and as president of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; John Ferrio, individually and as treasurer of Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America; Levi McConnaughey, individually and as board member of district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America; Harold Altman, Charles Anderson, Francis Brennan, Francis Burns, Nick Cherry, Eugene Comport, Louise Del Grande, James Eilliott, Howard Haterall, Robert Jackson, Julius Johnston, Charles Johnston, Howard Keys, William Maddox, John Mock, Walter Nowickie, Joe Paleo, jr., Joe Patterson, Arch Serian, Carmine Serian, George Shilling, Santo Sarrotto, James Trunzo, district No. 2, United Mine Workers of America, and Local No. 1736, United Mine Workers of America, their associates, aiders, abettors and agents, or any other person acting with the above named, or hereafter named, defendants, on the part of the said plaintiff, that you have been complained against as fully set out in the bill of equity hereto attached.

We therefore, in consideration of the premises aforesaid, do strictly enjoin and command you, the said defendants, your associates, aiders, abettors, and agents, and all other persons that you do from henceforth desist

(a) From attempting by any schemes, combination or conspiracy among themselves, or with others, to annoy, hinder or interfere with or prevent any person or persons from working for the plaintiff or seeking employment with the plaintiff, or from any and all acts, and from the use of any ways, means and methods, such as assaulting, attempting to assault, beating, threatening, picketing, terrorizing, intimidating, and annoying the employees or their families at their homes, spreading reports causing men seeking employment to fear violence in plaintiff's employ, causing explosions, writing or causing threatening letters to be written to employees or families of employees of plaintiff, putting or attempting to put any person or persons in fear which will tend to hinder, impede or onstruct the plaintiff from operating the said Rossiter Mines.

(b) From picketing and parading in, upon, or through the public roads, roads, /streets, alleys, bridges, railroads and other places, past, near or in the vicinity or in the neighborhood or leading to the Rossiter Mines or the dwelling or boarding houses of the employees of the plaintiff.

(c) From loitering, assembling or congregating about or near the property of the plaintiff or trespassing thereon, from visiting the dwellings or boarding houses of the employees of the plaintiff, to intimidate them or their families, from obstructing the streets or roads of Rossiter, from congregating about or near in the town of Rossiter where the employees and their families go, from operating and maintaining automobile patrols on the streets and roads of Rossiter, from erecting or causing to be erected or maintaining bill boards for purpose of displaying signs warning men to stay away from Rossiter, from congregating on the Magyar Presbyterian Church lot, or any other lot, lots, place or places at the time the employees of the plaintiff enter the mine and at the time the employees of the plaintiff come out of the mine, from singing song or songs in hearing of the employees of the plaintiff of a threatening or hostile nature.

(d) From suggesting danger to or giving the appearance of danger to the employees or the families of the employees of the plaintiff: from saying or doing