Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1893-04-05
ARE BOYCOTTS LEGAL

Inc questions luNOlNeu III lue uoci
sions of the Federal courts Of the state
of Ohio recently in relation to the sub
ject Of strikes and labor boycotts is Of
great interest both to the employer and
employe in railway operations, and the
decision carried to its logical conclusion
is of vast importance to the country.
The facts out of which the judgment of
the court arose have as yet not been so
clearly or succinctIy stated as to enable
any one interested TO fully understand
the true import Of the holding OF the
court. The suit was brought against
certain defendants with whom was
Joined Grand Chief Arthur Of the
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
and among other things sought to re-
strain him from issuing orders directing
the engineers on certain lines Of rail-
ways to boycott the Ann Arbor cars or
TO strike IN case the cars of that road
should be hauled in trains over the
lines within the jurisdiction OF Chief
Arthur's brotherhood. There was a
strike Of the engineers on the Ann Ar
Dor road. In the constitution of the
Brotherhood it is provided that when
a strike exists on one line the engineers
Of all other lines connecting with 1t
shall refuse to haul cars belonging to
the line on which the strike exists, for
the purpose of enabling the strikers to
have full and complete control over the
business of the line operated by them.
1t was alleged that certain lines in the
state Of Ohio which had traffic and
passenger connection with the Ann
Arbor road, upon which the strike was
in progress, insisted upon carrying the
cars of that line, and that, to assist the
strikers, Grand Chief Arthur was about
TO issue orders to the Brotherhood over
which he had control TO insist on their
respective lines boycotting the Ann
Arbor ears aud business, or to go out on
a strike themselves. The order of the
court was sought restraining the chief
from issuing such orders as being
against the laws Of the land, contrary
to public policy, and detrimental to the
interests Of the commerce of the coun-
try. The case was tried before Judge
Tufts, of the federal court, and the facts
elected were undisputed and were sub
stantially as above related. The opin-
ion of the court was based chiefly on
the provisions of the interstate COM
merce law, forbidding discrimination
by any common carrier against any
person or corporation in interstate COM
merce The court held that under the
law it was the clear duty Of all roads
connecting with the Ann Arbor road to
receive from and to deliver freight to
that road, and that as corporations
could only act through their agents
and servants, the law would be nuga-
tory unless 1t should be made to apply
to those persons engaged in the opera
ton of the road; that under the law
the business of the Ann Arbor road
could not be boycotted, and that the
laws of the Brotherhood Of Engineers
requiring such action were void, and
constituted the Brotherhood a conspir-
acy against the laws of the country,
which it was the duty of the courts to
defeat whenever the question should be
properly presented, and the conclusion
was reached that Chief Arthur should
be restrained from ordering either the
boycott or the strike.
1t is difficult to see wherein the con.
clusion arrived at is not sound in prin'
ciple, and impossible to see why the
opinion Of the court should not be thu
law of the land. No one questions tn,
right of locomotive engineer OF othe
person to give up his employment
whenever he may choose, either will
or without satisfactory reasons, an
any number of men who choose ma
quit labor whenever they feel that tn
circumstances warrant them in takin
that course, but 1t is quite anothe
matter to so organize labor as to pre-
vent the carriers OF the country b.
force from complying with the obliga
lions which the laws and their dutie
to the public impose upon them.
A strict adherence to the principle
laid down by the court is in the interes
of labor as well as in the interest of tn
employer Of labor. 1t has been amy'
terry in these organizations how tn
idea originated Of compelling the en-
ployes OF one line, who have no grie'
ance whatever, to strike because thos
Of some other line are not so fortunate
thus sacrificing all the duties whic
they owe to themselves, their en-
ployers and the public. Business pc
icy, If no other reason, should sugges
n differpnt course. because the resul