The Laclede Companies brought suit against sixty-two defendants to enjoin interference, by alleged violence and unlawful picketing, with the operation of their plants and business at Alton, Illinois. After hearing the evidence the court entered an injunctional order restraining the defendants, who, for the most part, were not the companies’ -striking employees, from “congregating at or near the plants and property * * *. Preventing, or attempting to prevent, by threat or intimidation any person engaging or remaining in the employment of * * * (Laclede) * * *; singly or in combination or conspiracy with each other, * * * preventing or attempting to prevent by threat, force or intimidation, or by the use of profane, insulting or abusive language, any person being employed by the complainants or engaging and .remaining in the employment of the complainants. * * * ”
Subsequently this injunctional order was modified in substantial respects, by striking out the restraint of defendants from interfering by threats of force or intimidation, or by use of profane or abusive language, etc., and adding other paragraphs. The original order and modification appear in the margin.†
*637Defendants appealed from the original injimctional order, and Laclede Companies appealed from the modified injunctional order. Laclede Companies move to dismiss appeal No. 5393 on the ground that the ordei appealed from no longer exists inasmuch as it was subsequently modified. This motion must be overruled for the reason that the order appealed from was not vacated but merely modified. It was still ob*638jectionable to the defendants who had a right to a review of the objectionable features.
The properties of the Laclede Companies extend over forty-two acres and are valued at more than $200,000. The companies manufacture steel and steel products and employ from three to six hundred men.
The record discloses many acts of violence, shooting, bombing, and disturbance to such an extent that it was necessary for Laclede to improvise sleeping and eating accommodations within the plants for their employees, who were compelled because of the terrorism to remain in the plants twenty-four hours a day for several days without returning home.
On December 18, 1933, a crowd of from two to three hundred men assembled, some armed, many not employees, and “violently assaulted and injured certain employees.” This assemblage continued until January 20, 1934, when the temporary restraining order was entered.
The District Court defined the issue to be whether, under section 7(e) of the Norris-La Guardia Act (29 U.S.C.A. § 107(e), requiring as a condition precedent to the issuance of the injunction “That the public officers charged with the duty to protect complainant’s property are unable or unwilling to furnish adequate protection,” it was requisite that proof be made that the aid of state and municipal officers had been sought and proved unavailing. The District Court construed the term “public officers” to include city and county officials and not the Governor.
The District Court found, inter alia, that the Laclede have the support of the great majority of their employees, and their relations have been harmonious. Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, some three hundred of the employees had subscribed to the Employees Representation Plan; representatives were selected by the employees under theif own supervision. The court found: That if the injunction were lifted the defendants have threatened to resume violence; and the mayor, chief of police, sheriff, and state’s attorney expressed the belief such violence would be resumed, and that their previous inability to preserve the peace would again obtain; that these same officials are either unable or unwilling to protect Laclede property; that the employees are unrestricted in the choice of their representatives; that unless the violence is restrained substantial and irreparable injury will follow; that Laclede have not failed to comply with any obligations imposed upon them by law, and have not failed to make every reasonable effort to negotiate.
Defendants assert that the Laclede Companies are without right to seek an injunction in view of the Norris-La Guardia Act because they did not make every reasonable effort to settle the dispute, a requisite made a condition precedent by section 8 (29 U.S. C.A. § 108) to the granting of an injunction and because the complainants interfered with their employees in self-organization. No issue was made in the brief of lack of showing of the Governor’s inability to protect Laclede’s property.
Laclede Companies contend: (1) That section 8, requiring negotiation, is inapplicable in cases of fraud or violence; (2) that conceding section 8 to be applicable, the Laclede Companies have complied with every obligation imposed by law and that they have not failed to attempt to make every reasonable .effort to negotiate, citing the companies’ president’s negotiations with the St. Louis Labor Board after a complaint had been filed by the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers. The court on this issue found:
“ * * * that the complainants have not failed to comply with any obligation imposed upon them by law which is involved in any labor dispute or in the matter of relations between the employer and employees connected with the complainants’ plants and business, and have not failed to make every reasonable effort to settle any dispute, controversy or question arising out of or pursuant to the employment of labor by the complainants, either by negotiation or with the aid of any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration; * *
The injunctional order as amended conforms to the views by us expressed in the recently decided case of United Electric Coal Companies v. Rice et al., 80 F.(2d) 1, and for that reason, further discussion of the question is unnecessary. We adhere to the conclusion there expressed and in so doing must reject the argument of defendants on this appeal. We are likewise satisfied that the Laclede Companies have disclosed no reversible error in the order of modification.
The extent to which an injunction may' go, where allowable at all, depends upon *639the facts in each case, and any application made at any time to modify an existing injunctional order should be heard, and, if the facts warrant it, should be modified.
The motion to dismiss is denied. The injunctional decree as modified is affirmed.