Page:Cole v. State (210 Ark. 433).pdf/11

 form of violence. Webster's New International Dictionary defines violence as follows: "Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault. Broadly, exertion of any physical force considered with reference to its effect on another than the agent, as in effecting an entrance into a house in burglary. Sometimes, in law, the overcoming or prevention of resistance by threats of violence is held to be constructive violence."

Proof of threats was admissible to explain the purpose of the strikers and was admissible also to show the concert of action which proved the existence, of a conspiracy among the strikers to prevent others not on a strike from working.

The defense was interposed that the strikers were attempting merely to persuade those employees not on a strike, to desist from working. But how could this lawful purpose be disproved except by showing what the strikers said they would do and what they did?

What means the testimony recited in the majority opinion that Campbell and others said the very afternoon when the strike terminated in riot, resulting in Campbell's death, tbat they were going to talk to a boy who was working, and if the boy did not talk right they were going to whip him? Why whip the boy if not to stop him from work?

Why was Williams assaulted by Campbell except to prevent Williams from working? Williams and Campbell had had no personal quarrel or altercation. If the striking men were not "after " anyone why should Willie Brown have been told by Roy Cole, one of the strikers, that they were not after him? Does not this remark ex*plain itself, accempanied as it was by the fact that almost immediately after it was made Williams was attacked by another striker and forced to kill his assailant in his necessary self-defense, as the grand jury later found after investigating the facts? What meant the remark of