Frostburg mining journal., 1883-02-17
No Justice for WOrkingmen Un-
der Maryland LaaUs as Laid
Do,cn by Judge Phelps.


against the striking glass. blowers ha'
been sustained. and only those counts
left standing which charge intimida'
ton, which the indicted men are
more than ready TO meet before 9
Jury. At first glance this seems
quite victory for the workmen in
this strange legal contest into which
they have been forced, but closer
inspection of the decision shows that
it rests on a mere failure of averment
in the indictment and not in any
broad provisions in the laws of this
State assuring equality to all citizens,
rich and poor, employer and employed
before the law. Had there been any
proof that the strikers knew Of a
contract between the manufacturers
and their imported foreign laborers
then the Whole Indictment would
have hello good, and the men must
have prepared for trial under it.
Not only in this case, but Judge
Phelps distinctly declared that the
decision of the Court Of Appeals in
the Buchanan case is the law Of
Maryland, aud he summed up the
whole matter thus: "For an en-
ployee to quit his service before its
expiration is a breach of contract.
For a third person to persuade or
entice the employee to break his
contract, for his own profit or his
neighbors injury, is an action4 Bile
tort. For a number Of persons to
combine for the accomplishment Of
that purpose is an immediate misde-
meanor, a conspiracy. Now, this
has a fair and plausible sound, and
is in the abstract true; but as a
statement Of law applicable TO mod
ern disputes between employer and
employed it is wide of the mark and
calculated to establish injustice and
cruel discrimination against the
workmen. The old titles of master
and servant have not disappeared
simply through a dislike on the part
of freemen to be called servants, but
because they have ceased to repre-
sent the relation now existing be-
tween employer and employed.
More and more labor is coming to be
treated as something which certain
men have to sell, and which certain
others want to buy, and the relation
between the contracting parties be-
comes purely commercial one which
custom makes terminable by either
party nearly at will. The old idea
of long contract for service has
disappeared and legislation based
on it, whether repealed or unrepeal-
ed, has no application to present
customs.
These, then, are the conditions
and customs on which the relation
between employers and employed
are largely based, and the courts are
bound to take notice of such customs
in attempting 10 apply to existing
conditions the laws passed when the
old status of master and servant,
with longtime contracts, existed.
Not only is it true, as declared by
Judge Phelps, that to sustain the
dismissed counts in the Indictment
actual knowledge of the existence
of contract must be brought home
to the men indicted for inducing men
to break it, but the reasonable pre-
sumption is there was no contract,
since it is not the custom to have
such. If there was any contract in
this particular case, it was one made
in Europe, and it ought not to be
binding or enforcible here, since 1t is
in its nature precisely such a ons as
those which the Unitd States stat
utes forbid any cne attempting to
enforce in this country when made
with Chinese coolies.
But the practical application Of
the law es laid down by Judge
Phelps brings out in clearer light than
can be done by argument its mon
strous injustice. Here is a case
where, under the American customs
as to the relation between employer
and employed, dispute took place
between number of glass manu-
facturers here in Baltimore and the
workmen in their employ, because of
a demand by the latter for such
wages as were paid in some other
parts of this country. The industry,
it is proper to remark, is one ol