The Dalles times-mountaineer. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1882-1904, 1893-04-15
LAW THE ARBITER.

During the past few days capital
and labor have each scored a victory
In the courts, and by these decisions 1t
has been demonstrated that the law is
the friend of the poor as well as the rich,
and that justice properly administered
is blind to all conditions or classes of
men. The strikers on the Ann Arbor
railroad were stopped from discrimi-
mating against handling freight from a
road on which a strike was in pro-
gress, and in Chicago members of the
United Garment Workers were held
not guilty of boycotting BY issuing cir
culars advising persons not to purchase
goods from the Clothing Manufactur-
ers' Association. In the first case the
action of the engineers in refusing
to transfer freight from or to
a line on which Chief Arthur
had advised strike, was construed as
preventing the operation of the Inter
State Commerce act. Capital was
jubilant over the decisions of Judges
Taft and Kicks in this case, and, after
the Clothing Association in Chicago
had locked out more than nine hun
dred workmen because they would not
pursue their labors under non union
foreman, they asked Justice Barrett to
restrain the men from using moral
suasion, without threats, to stop people
from purchasing the manufactured
articles of the company. Although
the case was dismissed on demurrer,
the judge in rendering the decision
went into its merits-obSter dactd-
and clearly implied that any workman
has the unquestioned right to persuade
any and whom he pleases from patron
izing firm, and it would not amount
to boycotting without force or threats
were used. The rulings of these
Judges will clearly define the line at
which employees can enforce their de-
mands, and how far employers can go
in restraining the actions of workmen.
Interstate commerce must not be in
terfered with in discriminating man
ner. In other words, if the Michigan
Central handle freights from the Grand
Trunk Railway 1t cannot refuse to
accord the same privilege to other
lines. Boycotting comes from across
the Atlantic, and should never have
been inaugurated here; but it is not
boycotting for any man who feels him
self aggrieyed to persuade his neighbor
not to purchase goods of certain
make or from particular firm, and
no action will lie if combination of
workmen publish circulars advising
persons not to patronize those whom
they consider their enemies. But no
threats must be used or any force en-
ployed. On these the Chicago judge
appears to base his dictum of the un-
lawfulness of the boycott.
There should be harmony between
capital and labor and employers and
employees, where selfish interests do
not clash, and the courts should be
the proper judges how far these selfish
interests may be pursued and still not
constitute violations of law or en-
croachments on individual or corporate
rights, guaranteed by the constitution
or statutory provisions. The law is
the protector of the strong as well as
the weak, and of the capitalist as we'll
as the labcrer. There is limit to the
encroachment of the former, and to
the persistent attacks of the latter.
The courts should be the arbiter in
these matters, and their decisions
should be binding in all disputes.