e rights of the workers
to organize, to bargain in regard to compensation, hours of labor and
conditions of work generally, to go on strike, to persuade or entice
their fellow workers by peaceful means from taking the positions which
they have left, to assemble at public places where such meetings are not
prohibited by law and ordinance, and "no person, either private citizen
or public official, has any right to deny, abridge or in any manner
interfere with the full and free enjoyment of those privileges and any
person who attempts to do so is himself guilty of an unlawful act."

After reciting such acts attributed to the workers in this case as were
in violation of law, the instructions went on to state that "a sheriff
has no authority to arrest any person without a warrant except upon
probable cause for believing such person has violated a law of the
state; nor has he authority after making such arrest to hold his
prisoner in custody for a longer time than is reasonably necessary to
cause proper complaint to be filed, and an opportunity given for bail. *
* * A sheriff has no right or authority to interfere with or prevent any
person from violating a city ordinance, nor has he the right or
authority to arrest for violations of city ordinances" unless "the act
threatened, or the act done, in violation of such ordinance be at the
same time violation of a state law."

The instructions then outlined the scope of criminal conspiracy, stating
that it was unnecessary for one conspirator to know all of the other
conspirators but that common design is the essence of the charge of
conspiracy. The acts of one conspirator become the acts of any and all
conspirators. In the eyes of the law the sheriff and the deputies also
constituted in this case but one personality, the sheriff being bound by
the acts of his deputies and the deputies being authorized by the powers
of the sheriff. Also the ordinance dated September 21st, 1916, was held
to be a valid one.

"Now whether any of the Industrial Workers of the World have been, prior
to November 5, 1916, guilty of encouraging disrespect for law, or of
unlawful assemblage, or of riot, is not the question on trial here. They
could all be guilty of all the acts or offenses heretofore mentioned,
and still this defendant be innocent of this particular crime charged on
November 5th, or they could all be innocent of all the acts mentioned,
and defendant still be guilty of the main charge here