New-York tribune., 1881-09-13
BTTS or Law. EOR STPJEEPs

may like to know whether the law Of the land
makes any effort to protect the interests Of the
general public. A strike, especially one organ
lied among the employees of a railroad. is not a
matter between masters and men only; the
public may be lncOnvcnicncod, nay, may be
endangered rs those who remember the Pitts
burg riots well understand. Yet, though the
Ill effects have been in several instances wide
spread and serious, little action has been
taken by the courts. Few trials of strikers
are upon record. Usually either compromise
is reached, or aid of the police or military is in
voked; hence decisions sustaining or condemn
ing combinations of worl<mcn against en-
ploycrs are few in number.
One rule OF law which has been for some
years past established is that no offence is COM
mitted by worltmen who simply refuse to con-
tinue work as a means of getting wages raised
or grievances redressed Early American law
did not so fully recognize the right of workmcn
to decline employment. Upon modern views
the laborcr may accept or decline a. he plcascs
His motives are his own affair. Simple refusal
to work may be a breach of contract it does
not become an offence because the motive is TO
compel employers to raise wages, nor because
numbers of men unite in the refusal This NAV
not apply to every vocation; soldiers and
refusing to serve, even though Government has
been unable TO provide for prompt payment of
wages But it is the general rule. No crime is
involved in the agreement of workmcn TO re-
fuse further work, 40 long a. they limit them
selves peaceably to Withholding their own SER
vices. Even where many have banded them
selves III "unions " under rules which forbade
members from working for wages below "unon
rates" the courts have said the men were inno-
cent of offence if thoir schemes and rules
operated only to restrain voluntary members of
the society.
But soon after this rule became established.
devices and plans Of discontented workmep
were developed, tending to hinder men who
were satisfied with the pay from taking the lob.
union would fix Il rate of wages; the en-
ployers would refuse 10 pay it the union men
would withdraw from the factory, road or
mine the employers would advertise for raw
hands; these would come forward and then
the worllmcn on strike would interfere to rcpel
them; would beat or stone them ruin their
tools, and cndcavor to drive them from the lob
1t has become settled that all combinations of
workmcn iii i,satSGcd with low WAGES 10 hinder
by force, threats any unfair or compulsory
means, competitors who are willing to accent
the low wages from taking their places. are
criminal. Such combinations are what is called
II conspiracy" Wherever the general law of
conspiracy prevails men who unite TO prevent
willing hands from working arc punishable.
No workman Is punishable tor refusing employ
mCut but to hIudcr another man from taking
the job is an offence.
A more recent and important question has
arisen where large body of men time their re-
fusal III such way as to cause special danger
or loss. Upon railroad, for cxamnlc. cn.-i
nccrs, brakcmen and porters agree ON "A day and
an hour when ALL no matter where or how en-
gagged each may be, shall quit his worl,
The result is that the entire service of the road
Is thrown into dangerous confusion All along
the route valuable freight is left uncuorded
Passengers find themselves helpless midway
between stations. The management is involved
i'll immense embarrassment and loss II wos
precisely to cause these that the men agreed
upon time for stopping in their several tasks
And 1t has been argued for such strikers that
they commit no offence because they do not
hinder the company from filling their places.
But the strong current of opinion is against fhe
excuse. An individual cmployc cannot be pun
ishcd offender for quitting. But when a
large body agree on Il time and manner of Quit
ting selected for the express purpose of doing
as much harm AZ possible, a criminal conspiracy
is shown Moreover, in several of the States |
this principle, it being regarded as novel and
perhaps doubtful, has been formulated in ex-
press statutes. Several of the Lrgislotures
have lately imposed severe punishmcnts on
those who engage in strikes of this form
These laws recognize that while laboring mon
are to be protected in their individual freedom
of labor, companies, and the travelling and
notwithstanding public, are to be pro
tocted against Vaccinations and malicious de-
vices.